MAS5.    5-Cs  .  £0  7H  :  K£f\ 


UMASS   AMHERST 


3150bb    0573    AMS5    b 


€J)c  Commontucaltr)  of  itlaesacliusctts. 


REPORT 


OF  THE 


COMMISSION  TO  INVESTIGATE 
EMPLOYMENT  OFFICES. 


May,  1911. 


m 


\, 


BOSTON: 

.f  *  POTTER  PRINTING  CO.,  STATE  PRINTER8, 
18  Post  OmcE  Squabe. 
1911. 


.        .      : 


LIBRARY 


OF  THE 


MASSACHUSETTS 

AGRICULTURAL 

COLLEGE 


SOURCE-  S_*C_.___«X-51?S. 


331. «k 

M3Sr 


33l,H 


CONTENTS. 


Letter  of  transmission,       ......... 

Resolves  providing  for  appointment  of  commission  and  extending  time 
for  report,  ......... 

I.     Introductory  statement,  ....... 

II.     Private  employment  offices:  — 

A.  General  observations  and  conclusions, 

B.  Specific  recommendations,  ..... 
III.  State  free  employment  offices,  ..... 
Appendix:  — 

A.  Draft  of  an  act  concerning  private  employment  offices, 

B.  Draft  of  an  act  concerning  state  free  employment  offices, 

C.  Rules  of  Licensing  Board  of  Boston,     .... 
Topical  summary  of  the  laws  of  other  States  (folders). 


PAGE 

5 

7 
9 

11 
18 
64 

105 
120 
124 


Stye  (Eommontoealtt)  of  iHa00oct)usctts. 


Boston,  May  15,  1911. 

To  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts. 

In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  chapter  146  of  the 
Resolves  of  the  year  1910,  entitled  "  Resolve  to  provide  for 
the  investigation  of  employment  and  intelligence  offices/'  as 
amended  by  chapter  2  of  the  Resolves  of  the  year  1911,  we 
respectfully  submit  the  following  report. 

HOWARD  W.  BROWN. 
NATHAN  L.  AMSTER. 
ALICE  L.  HIGGINS. 


RESOLVES  IN  REGARD  TO  THE  COMMISSION  TO 
INVESTIGATE  EMPLOYMENT  OFFICES. 


Resolves  of  1910,  Chapter  146. 
Resolve  to  provide  for  an  investigation  of  employment  and 

intelligence  offices. 

Resolved,  That  a  commission  of  three  persons  be  appointed  by 
the  governor,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  council,  to  serve 
without  compensation.  The  commission  shall  investigate  and  study 
the  condition  and  management  of  employment  agencies  and  intel- 
ligence offices  of  all  kinds  in  the  commonwealth,  and  the  efficiency 
of  the  laws  relating  thereto.  The  commission  shall  also  investigate 
in  regard  to  the  advisability  of  extending  the  services  of  the  state 
free  employment  offices  of  the  bureau  of  statistics  so  as  to  provide 
farm  labor  throughout  the  commonwealth.  The  commission  shall 
be  allowed  such  sum  for  its  necessary  expenses,  not  exceeding  two 
thousand*  dollars,  as  may  be  approved  by  the  governor  and  council, 
and  shall  report  in  print  to  the  general  court,  not  later  than  the 
eleventh  day  of  January,  nineteen  hundred  and  eleven,  with  such 
recommendations  for  legislation  or  otherwise  as  it  may  deem  ex- 
pedient. The  commission  shall  have  authority  to  summon  witnesses, 
and  enforce  their  attendance,  to  order  the  production  of  books, 
papers,  agreements  and  documents  and  to  administer  oaths  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  provisions  of  chapter  one  hundred  and  seventy- 
five  of  the  Revised  Laws,  and  acts  amendatory  thereof  and  in 
addition  thereto.     [Approved  June  15,  1910. 

Resolves  of  1911,  Chapter  2. 

Resolve  extending  the  time  for  the  filing  of  the  report  of 
the  commission  appointed  to  investigate  employment 
agencies  and  intelligence  offices. 

Resolved,  That  the  time  for  the  filing  of  the  report  of  the  commis- 
sion appointed,  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  chapter  one  hundred 
and  forty-six  of  the  resolves  of  the  year  nineteen  hundred  and  ten, 
to  investigate  and  study  the  condition  and  management  of  employ- 
ment agencies  and  intelligence  offices  of  all  kinds,  is  hereby  ex- 
tended until  the  second  Wednesday  of  March  in  the  year  nineteen 
hundred   and   eleven.      [Approved  January  31,   1911. 


8 

Note.  —  Before  the  time  for  filing  its  report,  as  extended  by  the 
second  of  the  above  resolves,  the  commission  concluded,  for  many 
reasons,  that  its  report  ought  not  to  be  filed  at  this  session  of  the 
Legislature.  It  accordingly  introduced  upon  petition  a  resolve 
further  extending  the  time  for  its  report  until  January,  1912.  The 
House  refused  to  grant  an  extension  beyond  the  15th  of  May,  and 
passed  a  resolve  to  that  effect.  The  Senate  amended  the  resolve  so 
passed  so  as  to  allow  the  whole  extension  asked  for,  and  the  House 
having  failed  to  concur  in  this  amendment,  a  conference  committee 
was  appointed.  At  the  time  when  this  report  goes  to  press  it  is 
probable  that  the  conference  committee  will  recommend  and  the  Leg- 
islature will  pass  a  resolve  requiring  the  commission  to  report  at 
the  present  time,  but  continuing  it  in  office,  with  full  powers,  until 
next  January,  with  leave  to  file  at  that  time  a  supplementary  report. 


Repokt  of  the  Commission  to  Investigate 
Employment  Offices. 


I.    INTRODUCTORY  STATEMENT. 

The  commission  was  appointed  in  July,  1910,  but  inas- 
much as  all  the  members  had  arranged  to  take  summer  vaca- 
tions during  the  month  of  August,  no  work  could  be  done 
until  the  first  of  September.  The  months  of  September, 
October  and  November  were  devoted  to  study  and  investiga- 
tion of  existing  conditions,  and  the  collection  of  the  material 
upon  which  the  report  of  the  commission  was  to  be  based. 
Investigators  were  employed  who  visited  in  person  practically 
all  the  employment  offices  in  Boston,  and  in  other  cities  and 
towns  having  a  population  of  more  than  10,000  inhabitants 
in  which  there  were  more  than  3  licensed  offices.  In  the 
smaller  towns  and  in  cities  and  towns  having  3  or  less  licensed 
offices  the  business  was  found  to  be  so  limited  that  investiga- 
tion was  hardly  worth  while.  In  this  way  92  licensed  offices 
in  Boston  and  the  same  number  outside  of  Boston  were  visited 
and  39  other  calls  were  made  at  supposedly  licensed  offices 
which  either  had  gone  out  of  business  or  were  doing  so  little 
as  to  make  investigation  valueless.  In  addition  to  the  licensed 
offices,  all  offices  doing  business  without  licenses,  so  far  as 
discovered,  were  investigated  in  the  same  manner. 

Besides  the  personal  investigation  of  offices,  the  results  of 
which  were  fully  reported  to  the  commission  by  the  investi- 
gators, the  commission  itself  conferred  with  many  managers 
of  employment  offices  of  all  kinds ;  with  members  of  the 
Licensing  Board  of  the  City  of  Boston ;  with  former  members 
of  the  Police  Board  of  Boston ;  with  the  present  Police  Com- 
missioner of  Boston ;  with  former  inspectors  of  police,  who 
were  at  one  time  specially  assigned  to  the  duty  of  inspecting 
licensed  employment  offices;  with  employers  and  employ* 


10 


and  with  many  other  persons  whose  knowledge  of  conditions 
and  opinions  seemed  of  value  to  the  commission.  Beyond 
this  the  investigators  interviewed  the  police  authorities  and 
other  persons  in  cities  and  towns  outside  of  Boston,  and  circu- 
lar letters  containing  a  schedule  of  questions  were  distributed 
among  the  members  of  women's  clubs  and  of  agricultural  so- 
cieties and  granges  throughout  the  Commonwealth. 

In  all  of  the  above  ways  the  commission  endeavored  to  in- 
form itself  as  fully  as  possible  upon  the  following  points :  — 

(a)  The  different  kinds  of  employment  offices  and  the  busi- 
ness methods  of  each  kind. 

(b)  The  possibilities  of  abuse  which  exist  with  reference 
to  employment  offices,  in  view  of  the  nature  of  the  business 
and  the  methods  employed. 

(c)  The  general  extent  to  which  the  possible  abuses  do  ac- 
tually exist  in  fact. 

Xo  attempt  was  made  to  gather  evidence  of  specific  abuses 
in  such  manner  as  would  secure  a  conviction  in  court,  for  two 
reasons :  first,  because  the  time  at  the  disposal  of  the  commis- 
sion was  too  short  to  permit  the  accumulation  of  enough  evi- 
dence of  this  sort  to  amount  to  much;  second,  because  a 
general  knowledge  of  the  situation  as  a  whole,  gathered  from 
observation  and  conferences,  seemed  to  the  commission  amply 
sufficient  to  show  that  abuses  are  possible  and  do  actually  ex- 
ist to  a  sufficient  extent  to  justify  further  legislation,  and 
also  sufficient  to  indicate  what  kind  of  legislation  should  be 
adopted.  Upon  the  information  obtained  in  the  above  man- 
ner, and  after  a  thorough  study  of  the  laws  of  other  States, 
the  commission  has  drafted  the  bill  printed  in  the  Appendix, 
the  terms  of  which  are  explained  in  part  II.,  B,  of  this  report. 

As  to  the  State  free  employment  offices,  much  the  same 
method  of  investigation  has  been  employed  as  with  reference 
to  the  private  offices.  The  existing  offices  have  been  per- 
sonally visited,  and  conferences  have  been  held  with  those 
conducting  the  offices,  with  employers  and  employees,  and 
with  other  persons  familiar  with  the  work  of  the  offices.  In 
addition,  many  books  and  articles  on  governmental  employ- 
menl  bureaus,  and  the  reports  of  such  bureaus  in  many  com- 


11 

munities,  have  been  read  and  studied.  As  a  result,  a  separate 
act  has  been  drafted  concerning  the  State  free  employment 
offices.  This  act  is  printed  in  the  Appendix,  and  is  explained 
in  part  III.  of  this  report. 

The  commission  desires  to  express  its  appreciation  of  the 
valuable  assistance  given  to  it  by  the  managers  of  private  em- 
ployment offices  of  all  kinds,  including  those  who  have  never 
been  licensed  as  well  as  those  now  subject  to  control;  and 
likewise  by  the  Director  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  and  the 
superintendents  of  the  State  free  employment  offices.  All 
these  persons  have  aided  the  commission  in  every  possible 
way,  and  with  great  courtesy,  to  obtain  the  information  it 
desired.  Thanks  are  also  due  to  many  officials  now  and  for- 
merly connected  with  the  enforcement  of  the  law  as  to  private 
employment  offices  for  their  valuable  advice  and  suggestions, 
and  to  the  Women's  Educational  and  Industrial  Union  for 
the  results  of  its  investigation  of  conditions  in  Massachusetts, 
and  of  the  laws  in  other  States. 

II.  PRIVATE  EMPLOYMENT  OFFICES. 
A.  General  Observations  and  Conclusions. 
We  desire  to  report  in  the  first  place  our  firm  conviction 
that  many  of  the  leading  private  employment  offices  in  the 
Commonwealth  are  performing  an  extremely  valuable  serv- 
ice for  the  community  in  a  thoroughly  honest  and  efficient 
manner,  and  that  with  proper  regulation  and  inspection  all 
private  employment  offices  may  be  brought  up  to  a  satisfac- 
tory standard.  As  to  the  comparative  value  of  private  em- 
ployment offices  and  the  State  free  employment  offices,  we 
further  report  that  in  our  opinion  the  State  free  offices,  while 
they  have  a  useful  function  to  perform  and  should  be  con- 
tinued in  existence,  cannot  and  should  not  be  relied  upon  to 
supersede  the  private  offices;  that  private  employmenl  offices 
are  indispensable  to  the  community,  and  if  properly  con- 
trolled and  regulated  will  render  services  which  could  not  be 
so  well  performed  by  governmental  bureaus;  and  that  the 
wise  policy  to  adopt  is  not  to  abolish  private  employment 
offices,  or  in  any  way  restrict  the  field  of  their  activities,  in 


12 

the  hope  of  getting  better  results  from  State  free  offices  sub- 
stituted in  their  place,  but  rather  to  foster  and  encourage 
the  business  of  private  employment  offices  in  every  possible 
way. 

The  notion  that  State  free  offices  can  perform  the  same 
service  for  the  community  at  a  lower  cost  than  the  private 
employment  offices  appears  to  us  unfounded.  There  are  no 
available  statistics  which  can  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing such  a  comparison  between  the  two  systems  except  in  re- 
gard to  the  cost  per  capita  of  positions  secured ;  and,  entirely 
apart  from  the  unreliability  of  the  statistics  of  the  State  free 
offices  on  this  point  (see  part  III.  of  this  report),  we  are 
satisfied  that  this  cost  per  capita,  even  if  correctly  estimated, 
is  by  no  means  the  true  test  of  efficiency.  The  State  free 
offices  certainly  cannot  do  the  same  amount  of  work  which 
the  private  offices  do  at  a  lower  cost,  for  the  private  offices 
are  now  doing  their  work  at  bottom  prices.  They  incur  only 
necessary  expenses  and  earn  no  more  than  fair  compensa- 
tion. If,  therefore,  the  State  free  offices  do  operate  at  a 
lower  cost  per  capita,  they  must  accomplish  this  result  by 
doing  less  work  on  each  individual  case,  and  it  is  well  known 
that  this  is  what  they  do.  They  do  much  less  work  than  the 
private  offices  in  the  direction  of  investigating  the  character 
of  each  individual  applicant  and  trying  to  fit  the  right  man 
into  the  right  place. 

Such  being  the  case,  the  question  of  comparative  efficiency 
is  not  to  be  decided  by  the  cost  per  capita  alone,  but  by  the 
cost  per  capita  as  compared  with  the  service  rendered  per 
capita.  For  example,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  addi- 
tional work  done  on  each  case  by  the  private  offices  enables 
them  to  render  an  average  service  per  capita  represented  by  a 
position  lasting  one  year,  and  that  the  average  service  ren- 
dered by  the  State  free  offices  with  less  work  per  capita  is  a 
position  lasting  only  two  months,  it  would  follow  that  the 
private  offices  could  charge  six  times  as  much  as  the  State 
offices  and  still  be  costing  the  community  no  more.  Of 
course,  we  cannot  prove  definitely  by  this  that  the  private 
offices  are  more  efficient,  but  neither  can  those  who  believe 


13 

in  the  State  free  offices  as  the  proper  medium  for  the  re- 
lief of  all  unemployment  prove  that  they  are  right.  We 
are  content  to  rest,  however,  upon  the  proposition  that  the 
private  offices  are  trying  to  do  the  kind  of  work  the  com- 
munity wants,  and  that  if  the  cost  per  capita  is  higher, 
it  is  because  the  community  wants  more  work  per  capita, 
and  believes  that  it  pays  in  the  long  run,  whereas  the  State 
free  offices  are  trying  to  do  the  work  at  the  lowest  possible 
cost  per  capita,  or,  in  other  words,  with  a  minimum  amount 
of  work  per  capita,  regardless  of  the  wishes  of  the  commu- 
nity and  of  the  ultimate  value  of  the  service  as  a  whole. 
With  the  private  offices  the  cost  per  capita  is  automatically 
regulated  by  competition  and  experience,  in  accordance  with 
the  best  interests  of  the  community,  and  if  the  State  free 
offices  attempt  to  reduce  this  cost  they  must  inevitably  lose 
in  efficiency. 

The  above  reasons  seem  to  us  sufficient  to  dispose  of  the 
arguments  that  State  free  offices  are  better  than  private  offices 
because  they  are  cheaper.  The  question  still  remains,  how- 
ever, whether,  if  the  State  free  offices  were  to  change  their 
methods,  and  do  more  work  and  spend  more  money,  they 
would  not  then  exceed  in  efficiency  the  work  of  the  private 
offices.  In  our  opinion  they  would  not.  For  well-known 
reasons  we  never  think  of  establishing  governmental  grocery 
stores  and  governmental  dry  goods  shops  in  the  hope  of  hav- 
ing the  community  better  served  than  by  private  enterprise. 
The  same  reasons  should  clearly  govern  our  attitude  towards 
employment  offices,  unless  it  is  shown  that  the  employment 
office  business  is  different  from  other  businesses.  It  is  true 
that  the  public  is  perhaps  more  vitally  interested  in  the  em- 
ployment office  business  than  in  most  other  businesses,  and 
it  is  also  true  that  the  employment  office  business  is  one  in 
which  fraud  and  imposition  are  peculiarly  possible.  The 
fact  that  we  are  especially  anxious  to  have  this  business  well 
carried  on,  however,  does  not  show  or  begin  to  show  that  it 
will  in  fact  be  better  carried  on  by  governmental  agen 
than  by  private  offices;  and  believing,  as  we  do,  that  fraud 
and  imposition  can  be  reduced  to  a  negligible  minimum  by 


14 

proper  regulations,  we  reach  the  conclusion  that  in  this  as 
in  all  other  businesses  the  best  guarantee  of  efficient  public 
service  is  the  stimulus  of  competition  for  public  favor,  and 
of  the  struggle  for  success  among  private  individuals  engaged 
in  the  business  as  a  means  of  earning  a  livelihood. 

We  repeat,  therefore,  that  in  our  opinion  no  attempt 
should  be  made  to  set  up  a  system  of  State  free  offices  as  a 
substitute  for  the  private  employment  offices,  and  that  the 
latter  should  be  regarded  as  the  recognized  and  proper 
medium  for  bringing  together  the  ordinary  employee  out 
of  employment  and  the  ordinary  employer  with  employment 
to  offer.  At  the  same  time,  as  above  suggested,  and  as 
more  fully  explained  in  part  III.  of  this  report,  we  also 
believe  that  State  free  employment  offices  have  many  ex- 
tremely useful  special  functions  to  perform,  and  should  un- 
questionably be  continued  in  existence  and  developed  along 
the  lines  hereinafter  suggested. 

In  spite,  however,  of  our  belief  in  the  utility  and  im- 
portance of  private  employment  offices,  and  in  spite  of  our 
firm  conviction  that  their  sphere  of  activity  ought  not  to  be 
in  any  way  diminished  by  legislative  enactment,  we  are 
equally  convinced  that  the  best  interests  of  the  community 
demand  that  they  should  be  thoroughly  regulated  and  super- 
vised by  the  government.  This  is  a  business  in  which  fraud 
and  imposition  are  peculiarly  possible.  The  business  is  one 
requiring  little  or  no  capital,  and  so  may  be  taken  up  easily 
by  irresponsible  and  unscrupulous  persons.  Persons  with 
whom  the  employment  office  keeper  deals  are  to  a  large  ex- 
tent ignorant,  and  in  many  cases  so  driven  by  the  necessities 
resulting  from  unemployment  as  to  be  willing  to  put  up 
with  anything  if  only  they  can  get  employment.  Further- 
more, the  nature  of  the  business  itself  affords  unusual  op- 
portunities for  fraud,  for  the  reason  that  the  work  of  the 
office  keeper  is  done  in  the  dark.  He  knows  what  opportu- 
nities for  employment  exist  and  where  they  exist,  but  the 
applicant  for  employment  knows  nothing  except  what  he 
is  told.  If  the  applicant  is  made  to  pay  a  fee,  and  is  then 
sent  to  a  distant  place  for  employment  and  finds  the  posi- 


15 

tion  taken,  how  does  he  know  and  how  can  he  prove  that  the 
office  keeper  knew  that  the  position  was  taken,  and  sent  him 
there  only  as  an  excuse  for  getting  a  fee,  and  in  the  hope 
that  he  would  never  come  back?  If  the  applicant  gets  no 
position  for  several  weeks,  how  does  he  know  and  how  can 
he  prove  that  there  were  positions  that  he  might  have  had, 
and  that  he  is  being  kept  waiting  until  in  sheer  desperation 
he  is  ready  to  pay  an  exorbitant  fee  and  say  nothing  about 
it  in  order  to  obtain  employment  again  ?  If  the  applicant 
gets  a  position  and  holds  it  for  a  short  time,  only  to  lose  it  for 
no  fault  of  his  own,  how  does  he  know  and  how  can  he  prove 
that  the  office  keeper  has  subsidized  the  foreman,  who  dis- 
charged him  to  change  employees  as  often  as  possible  so  as 
to  increase  the  profits  of  the  office  ?  We  have,  then,  a  busi- 
ness which  may  easily  be  taken  up  by  cheaters,  in  which 
the  persons  to  be  dealt  with  are,  on  the  whole,  rather  easy 
to  cheat,  and  in  which,  because  of  the  nature  of  the  busi- 
ness, it  is  particularly  easy  to  cheat  without  being  detected, 
and  it  is  for  this  reason  that  governmental  regulation  and 
supervision  are  deemed  necessary. 

But  why,  it  may  be  asked,  do  we  need  to  regulate  this 
business  and  not  other  businesses  ?  Suppose  the  opportunity 
for  fraud  is  somewhat  greater  here,  is  it  not  true  that  com- 
petition will  destroy  the  fraudulently  conducted  office,  and 
that  only  honest  office  keepers  can  succeed  ?  The  answer 
to  these  questions  is  threefold.  In  the  first  place,  fraud 
in  this  particular  business  is  so  much  easier  than  in  most 
businesses  that,  even  if  competition  will  eventually  drive 
a  dishonest  office  keeper  out  of  business,  he  can  never  thel<  iss 
flourish  for  a  time,  and  do  much  harm  before  his  methods 
are  discovered.  Thus  we  find  that  in  some  of  our  Massachu- 
setts cities,  where  there  is  practically  no  regulation  or  in- 
spection of  employment  offices,  there  is  a  constant  succ 
sion  of  undesirable  persons  engaged  in  the  business,  each 
of  whom  has  his  fling,  and  makes  what  he  can  by  corrupt 
methods,  and  then  disappears.  In  the  second  place,  because 
of  the  secrecy  with  which  an  employment  agent  may  condud 
his  business,  and  because  of  the  fact  that  he  deals  for  the 


16 

most  part  constantly  with  new  clients,  and  not  with  an 
established  list  of  patrons,  the  effect  of  competition  as  a 
corrective  force  is  very  much  less  than  in  most  businesses 
and  an  office  keeper  who  is  not  too  openly  dishonest  may 
continue  in  business  and  prosper  for  a  long  period  of  time. 
In  the  third  place,  the  employment  office  business  is  one  in 
which  the  community  is  more  vitally  interested  than  in  most 
businesses.  Unemployment  results  in  evils  which  are  not 
confined  to  the  anxiety  and  hardships  of  the  unemployed 
themselves.  It  is  a  direct  injury  to  the  community  as  a 
whole,  through  lack  of  production,  increase  of  poverty 
which  must  be  relieved  by  the  community,  and  the  increase 
of  crime  which  it  undoubtedly  causes.  Therefore,  the  em- 
ployment office,  standing  as  it  does  as  the  means  of  communi- 
cation and  negotiation  between  the  unemployed  and  the 
employers  with  work  to  be  performed,  is  a  thing  in  which 
the  community  is  vitally  interested.  If  this  work  is  properly 
done,  unemployment  and  misemployment  will  be  greatly  re- 
duced. If  the  work  is  badly  done,  unemployment  and  mis- 
employment  may  be  tremendously  increased.  Even  then,  if 
this  business  were  no  more  open  to  fraud  than  other  busi- 
nesses, the  community  might  well  see  fit  to  regulate  it 
because  of  its  special  importance ;  and  being,  as  it  is,  partic- 
ularly open  to  fraud,  the  community  cannot  well  afford  to 
allow  it  to  go  unregulated. 

That  the  policy  above  outlined  has  been  acted  upon  in 
many  other  communities  is  shown  by  a  study  of  the  laws  of 
other  States,  for  there  are  21  States  other  than  Massachusetts 
in  which,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  the  business  of  private 
employment  offices  is  regulated  by  statute.  Taking  it  as  es- 
tablished, then,  that  the  policy  of  governmental  regulation  of 
employment  offices  is  a  wise  and  necessary  policy,  the  ques^ 
tion  comes  as  to  the  extent  and  manner  of  regulation. 

A  brief  study  of  the  laws  of  other  States  will  show  that  the 
laws  of  Massachusetts  with  relation  to  private  employment 
offices  are  very  much  less  complete  than  the  laws  of  many  of 
the  other  States,  and  that  even  the  rules  established  by  the 
Licensing  Board  of  the  City  of  Boston  are  in  some  respects 


17 

less  thorough  than  the  laws  of  other  States.  In  general  it 
may  be  said  that  those  States  which  have  legislated  most  re- 
cently upon  this  subject  appear  to  have  more  thorough  laws 
than  we  have  in  four  respects.  First,  they  have  more  provi- 
sions tending  to  raise  the  standard  of  character  of  persons 
engaged  in  the  business,  such  as  the  requirement  of  sworn 
application  for  license,  requirement  of  a  bond,  etc.  Second, 
they  have  more  regulations  in  regard  to  the  business  methods 
required  of  employment  office  keepers,  such  as  the  keeping  of 
books,  the  giving  of  receipts,  etc.  (although  in  this  respect  it 
must  be  said  that  the  Boston  rules  are  more  nearly  up  to  the 
standards  of  the  other  States).  Third,  they  have  more  exten- 
sive prohibitions  of  specific  abuses,  such  as  division  of  fees 
with  employers,  false  and  misleading  advertisements,  etc. 
Fourth,  they  have  more  complete  provisions  as  to  the  inspec- 
tion of  employment  offices  and  the  enforcement  of  the  laws. 

Considering  the  nature  of  the  employment  office  business 
and  its  importance  to  the  community,  it  would  seem  that  Mas- 
sachusetts might  well  follow  the  lead  of  the  other  States  in 
the  four  respects  above  enumerated  simply  on  general  prin- 
ciples, and  without  any  knowledge  of  local  conditions  as  they 
actually  exist.  We  know  the  nature  of  the  employment  office 
business,  and  we  know  what  is  likely  to  occur  in  it  in  the 
absence  of  regulation.  Does  it  not  follow  that  we  should 
adopt  all  possible  laws  to  raise  the  standard  of  character  of 
persons  engaged  in  the  business,  to  insure  that  the  business 
is  conducted  in  a  methodical  and  business-like  manner,  to 
prohibit  all  abuses  likely  to  occur,  and  to  bring  about  the  strict 
enforcement  of  the  laws  ? 

Apart  from  general  principles,  however,  we  are  satisfied 
from  the  result  of  our  investigation  that  actual  conditions 
as  they  exist  in  Massachusetts  to-day  make  it  necessary  that 
we  should  have  more  complete  laws  and  better  provision  for 
their  enforcement.  Outside  of  Boston  this  is  unquestionably 
true.  In  most  of  the  cities  and  towms  the  license  fee  re- 
quired is  the  minimum  fee  of  $2  required  by  the  statute 
Many  offices  are  allowed  to  exist  without  license;  in  m< 
places   little  if  any  attention    is   paid   to   those   which   arc 


18 

licensed;  there  are  many  offices  conducted  by  persons  who 
ought  never  to  be  allowed  to  enter  the  business,  and  cases 
of  fraud,  dishonesty  and  immorality  are  found.  Even  in 
Boston,  where  the  license  fee  is  $50  or  $25,  depending  on 
the  sort  of  business  to  be  conducted,  and  the  statutory  re- 
quirements are  supplemented  by  a  comparatively  complete 
set  of  rules,  promulgated  by  the  Licensing  Board,  conditions 
are  not  as  good  as  they  should  be.  We  have  easily  found 
cases  in  which  office  keepers  have  accepted  bribes  from  appli- 
cants for  employment,  and  have  refused,  without  justifica- 
tion, to  make  refunds  of  fees  as  required  by  the  rules.  There 
are  unquestionably  many  cases  of  misrepresentation,  and  we 
know  of  at  least  one  licensee  whose  moral  character  is  known 
to  the  police  to  be  of  the  very  worst,  and  yet  she  retains  her 
license.  We  are  thoroughly  convinced,  therefore,  both  upon 
general  principles  and  for  practical  reasons,  based  upon  con- 
ditions as  we  have  found  them,  that  Massachusetts  needs 
to-day  a  new  law  in  regard  to  private  employment  offices, 
framed  along  the  lines  of  the  laws  which  have  been  passed 
in  other  States. 

B.     Specific  Recommendations. 

1.  Every  Employment  Agent  of  Any  Kind  ivho  charges 
Fees  for  his  Services  should  be  required  to  have  a 
License. 

The  present  law  (Revised  Laws,  chapter  102,  section  23) 
requires  a  license  from  every  person  who 

establishes  or  keeps  an  intelligence  office  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
or  giving  information  concerning  places  of  employment  for  domestics, 
servants,  or  other  laborers,  except  seamen,  or  for  procuring  or  giving 
information  concerning  such  persons  for  or  to  employers,  or  for  pro- 
curing or  giving  information  concerning  employment  in  business. 

We  consider  this  provision  inadequate.  In  the  first  place  it 
does  not  require  an  employment  agent  to  have  a  license  unless 
he  deals  with  domestics,  servants  or  other  laborers,  or  with 
employment  in  business.  Teachers'  agencies,  nurses'  agen- 
cies, theatrical  agencies  and  some  others  can  thus,  and  in  fact, 


19 

do  engage  in  business  without  licenses,  and  there  is  always 
the  possibility  of  a  difficult  question  arising  as  to  whether  a 
particular  employment  agent  falls  within  the  terms  of  the 
statute  so  as  to  require  him  to  obtain  a  license.  It  seems  to 
us  vastly  better  that  a  general  law  should  be  passed  requiring 
every  kind  of  employment  agent  to  be  licensed  if  he  charges 
fees  for  his  services.  They  are  all  engaged  in  the  work  of 
relieving  unemployment  for  profit  to  themselves,  and  while 
some  sorts  may  be,  and  undoubtedly  are,  of  a  higher  standard 
than  others,  it  seems  to  us  that  everybody  engaged  in  making 
money  in  this  field,  and  subject  to  the  temptations  of  making 
more  money  by  improper  methods,  should  be  brought  under 
supervision  and  control.  We  do  not  pretend  for  a  moment 
that  we  have  found  any  evidence  of  wrongdoing  on  the  part 
of  all  kinds  of  offices  which  would  thus  be  brought  under 
supervision,  but  this  appears  to  us  immaterial.  Wrongdoing 
is  possible  for  any  of  them,  and  if  we  are  to  have  any  system 
of  supervision  at  all  it  seems  to  us  much  more  sensible  to 
apply  that  system  to  the  whole  group.  If  one  kind  is  ex- 
cepted it  is  always  open  to  another  kind  to  ask  for  a  like 
exemption,  and  there  is  the  constant  danger  that  some  por- 
tion of  the  group  as  to  which  there  is  special  need  of  regula- 
tion might  thus  obtain  an  exemption.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  whole  group  is  included,  without  favor  or  distinction,  no 
one  can  reasonably  ask  for  an  exemption,  or  object  to  being 
included,  and  we  shall  be  sure  that  everything  necessary  is 
being  done.  Furthermore,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
continued  study  of  this  problem,  and  of  making  progress  in 
the  future,  the  question  of  actual  wrongdoing  is  only  one  of 
many  things  to  be  considered.  Constant  improvement  in 
methods  and  results  is  to  be  hoped  for,  and  if  all  agents  are 
licensed,  such  improvement  is  likely  to  be  more  rapid  becau-r 
more  will  be  known  about  the  problem  as  a  whole.  Lastly,  if 
any  particular  agency  thinks  itself  too  good  to  be  licensed  it 
may  be  said  that  we  know  of  no  kind  of  agency,  however 
praiseworthy  it  may  be  in  fact,  which  is  not  at  times  sub- 
jected to  suspicion  and  criticism.  It  seems  to  us  that  even 
the  best  kind  of  agency  will  gain  by  being  placed  under  the 


20 

license  system,  for  if  the  system  is  a  proper  one  the  licensing 
authority  will  then  stand  as  a  guarantee  that  things  are  as 
they  should  be,  and  will  thus  disarm  unfounded  suspicion  and 
criticism.  From  all  points  of  view,  then,  we  are  satisfied 
that  the  license  system  should  embrace  all  kinds  of  employ- 
ment agents  who  charge  a  fee  for  their  services,  without  mak- 
ing any  of  the  exemptions  that  are  sometimes  made  in  the 
laws  of  other  States,  and  we  have  drawn  sections  1  and  2  of 
the  bill  with  this  object  in  view. 

Another  feature  of  the  present  law  as  to  the  necessity 
of  obtaining  a  license  which  seems  to  us  inadequate  is  that 
it  requires  no  license  from  any  kind  of  employment  agent 
who  does  not  establish  or  keep  an  office.  A  man  can  spend 
his  whole  time  in  acting  as  an  employment  agent  on  street 
corners,  or  at  the  docks  where  immigrants  arrive,  or  at  places 
where  the  unemployed  congregate,  and  yet  if  he  keeps  no 
office  he  need  not  be  licensed.  Clearly,  every  agent  in  the 
business  should  be  licensed,  and  not  merely  those  who  keep 
offices.  In  fact,  the  itinerant  agent  would  appear  to  be 
rather  more  dangerous  than  the  others,  for  the  persons  with 
whom  he  would  be  likely  to  deal  would  probably  be  partic- 
ularly ignorant  and  dependent,  and  having  no  regular  office 
at  which  he  could  be  found,  and  where  his  doings  could  be 
investigated  and  observed,  he  would  run  less  chance  of  being 
held  accountable  for  unscrupulous  and  extortionate  practices. 
Section  2  of  the  bill  has  been  drawn,  therefore,  so  as  to  pro- 
hibit an  unlicensed  person  from  acting  as  employment  agent 
as  well  as  from  maintaining  an  employment  office.  It  will 
be  noticed,  however,  that  a  person  who  should  help  another 
to  secure  employment  on  a  particular  occasion  would  not 
thus  be  rendered  a  criminal  if  he  took  pay  for  his  services. 
For  it  is  only  employment  agents  who  must  be  licensed,  and 
by  section  1  the  phrase  "  employment  agents  "  is  defined  to 
include  only  those  who  engage  in  the  business  of  securing 
employment. 


21 


2.     The  Power  to  license  and  supervise  Employment  Offi( 

in  the  Larger  Cities  should  be  placed  in  the  Hands 
of  a  State  Deportment. 

The  problem  in  question  is  too  complicated  to  justify  the 
hope  that  local  municipal  authorities  with  other  duties  to 
perform  will  give  to  it  more  than  perfunctory,  offhand  atten- 
tion. This  is  not  only  obvious  but  is  also  what  has  actually 
taken  place  in  the  past.  Outside  of  Boston  this  power  is 
vested  in  the  mayor  and  aldermen  of  cities  and  in  the  select- 
men of  towns.  The  subject  has  received  nowhere  the  atten- 
tion that  it  deserves,  and  in  most  places  practically  no 
attention  at  all.  Even  in  Boston,  where  this  power  in  con- 
nection with  the  power  over  liquor  licenses  and  some  others 
is  given  to  a  special  licensing  board,  this  body  has  been  too 
much  taken  up  with  its  other  duties  to  do  much  with  the 
employment  office  question.  It  has  had  no  regular  inspect- 
ors to  keep  in  touch  with  conditions,  and  during  the  whole 
course  of  its  existence  has  made  no  special  investigation  so 
far  as  we  have  been  able  to  discover,  except  one  investigation, 
in  which  the  investigator  spent  in  all  ninety-six  hours.  We 
do  not  mean  to  criticise  the  various  boards  of  aldermen  and 
selectmen,  or  the  Licensing  Board  of  Boston.  The  simple 
fact  is  that  their  other  duties  make  it  impossible  for  them  to 
deal  with  this  subject  as  we  think  it  ought  to  be  dealt  with. 
They  cannot  keep  constantly  in  touch  with  conditions  so  as 
to  be  sure  that  the  laws  are  being  complied  with;  they  can 
hardly  get  to  know  enough  about  the  problem  to  exercise 
properly  the  discretionary  powers  vested  in  them  as  i<>  grant- 
ing and  revoking  licenses  and  establishing  rules;  they  cer- 
tainly cannot  hope  to  accumulate  enough  knowledge  and 
information  to  bring  about  progress  and  improvement  in 
methods  as  time  goes  on. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  State  department  or  sub-department 
with  no  other  duties  to  perform  would  give  its  undivided 
attention  to  this  subject  ;  would  be  constantly  in  touch  with 
existing  conditions;  would  accumulate  from  year  to  year,  as 
a  result  of  experience  and  observation,  a  fund  of  experience, 


22 

which  would  enable  it  not  only  to  discharge  its  duties  more 
and  more  efficiently  as  time  went  on,  but  also  to  recommend 
and  bring  about  improvements  in  methods  and  conditions. 

It  seems  to  us  too  clear  for  argument  that  a  State  depart- 
ment would  discharge  the  necessary  governmental  duties  in 
relation  to  employment  offices  far  more  thoroughly  and  effi- 
ciently than  they  could  possibly  be  discharged  by  local 
municipal  authorities.  The  only  question  is  whether  the 
problem  is  large  enough  to  justify  the  State  department. 
On  this  point  it  should  be  remembered,  in  the  first  place, 
that  the  department  can  easily  be  made  self-supporting  by 
means  of  the  licensing  fees.  Considering,  further,  that  the 
problem  involved  bears  directly  upon  the  evils  and  economic 
losses  resulting  from  unemployment  and  misemployment, 
and  is  also  closely  related  to  the  many  other  phases  of  the 
industrial  problem  as  a  whole,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  say- 
ing that  in  our  opinion  the  matter  should  be  handled  by  a 
State  department.  In  this  respect  we  follow  a  precedent 
already  established  in  many  other  States,  for  out  of  21  States 
whose  laws  are  worth  studying  in  connection  with  this  matter 
8  have  given  this  power  throughout  the  whole  State  to  a 
State  department.  These  States  are  California^  Colorado, 
Connecticut,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Missouri,  Ohio  and  Okla- 
homa. In  2  other  States,  Pennsylvania  and  New  York, 
while  the  power  is  left  to  local  authorities  it  is  placed,  in 
the  larger  cities,  in  the  hands  of  a  special  officer  having  no 
other  duties  to  perform,  and  persons  familiar  with  conditions 
in  these  two  States  have  advised  us  that  in  their  opinion  the 
local  system,  even  with  the  special  officers,  is  less  efficient 
than  the  State  system.  There  is,  therefore,  both  reason  and 
precedent  in  favor  of  adopting  the  State  system. 

We  feel,  however,  that  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  apply  the 
State  system  to  all  cities  and  towns  in  this  Commonwealth. 
The  employment  office  problem  is  almost  entirely  a  problem 
of  the  larger  communities.  In  the  smaller  cities  and  towns 
the  opportunities  for  employment  are  so  much  more  limited 
that  employees  seeking  work  are  much  better  able  to  obtain 
it  without  the  services  of  an  employment  agent,  and  there  is 


23 

little,  if  any,  field  for  the  employment  office.  There  is,  there- 
fore, little  to  be  gained  by  extending  the  Stat  m  beyond 
the  larger  cities.  On  the  other  hand,  there  would  be  a  con- 
siderable increase  in  the  expense  of  maintaining  the  State 
department  if  we  were  to  include  all  the  offices  which  may 
exist  here  and  there  throughout  the  whole  State,  and  it  would 
be  extremely  awkward  for  small  offices  located  in  distant 
parts  of  the  State  to  be  subject  to  the  control  of  a  depart- 
ment with  headquarters  in  Boston.  It  seems  wiser  for  these 
reasons  to  confine  the  State  system  to  the  larger  cities,  in 
which  the  offices  are  likely  to  be  large  enough  so  that  it  will 
not  be  a  hardship  for  them  to  deal  with  a  department  in 
Boston,  and  over  which  the  State  department  can  exercise  its 
powers  without  maintaining  an  organization  or  incurring 
expenses  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  magnitude  of  the  prob- 
lem involved  and  the  revenue  to  be  derived  from  the  license 
fees.  We  have,  'therefore,  decided  to  recommend  that  the 
State  system  be  applied  to  the  cities  having  a  population  of 
more  than  75,000  inhabitants,  and  that  elsewhere  the  local 
municipal  system  shall  prevail. 

The  cities  thus  falling  within  the  State  system,  according 
to  the  1910  census,  would  be  Boston,  Fall  Kiver,  Xew  Bed- 
ford, Lawrence,  Lynn,  Springfield,  Cambridge,  Lowell, 
Somerville  and  Worcester.  At  the  time  of  our  investigation 
in  the  fall  of  1910,  there  were  only  2  licensed  offices  in  Law- 
rence, 7  in  Xew  Bedford,  8  in  Lynn  and  9  in  Somerville, 
and  it  might  seem  at  first  sight  that  these  cities,  or  some  of 
them,  might  well  be  excluded  from  the  State  system.  Con- 
sidering, however,  that  these  are  the  larger  communities  in 
which  employment  offices  are  likely  to  spring  up  at  any  time, 
and  also  that  in  many  of  them  we  have  found  a  number  of 
unlicensed  offices  of  questionable  character,  we  believe  it 
better  to  include  them  all.  Furthermore,  the  line  must  be 
drawn  at  least  low  enough  to  include  Springfield,  with  8 
000  inhabitants,  for  in  that  city  there  were  Is  licensed 
offices,  and  conditions  on  the  whole  were  distinctly  bad.  A 
line  so  drawn  will  also  include  Xew  Bedford  and  Lynn,  so 
that  the  only  question,  in  any  event,  is  whether  to  draw  the 


24 

line  just  below  Springfield,  so  as  to  exclude  Lawrence  and 
Somerville.  As  to  this  point  we  find  that  Lawrence  already 
has  86,000  inhabitants  and  will  probably  soon  cross  any  line 
that  we  might  now  draw  between  it  and  Springfield,  and  also 
lies  near  Lowell,  which  is  included  in  any  event ;  that  Somer- 
ville already  has  77,000  inhabitants  and  lies  near  Boston, 
and  had  9  licensed  offices  at  the  time  of  our  investigation, 
and  that  there  are  at  present  no  other  cities  which  have  as 
many  as  60,000  inhabitants.  Under  all  the  circumstances,  it 
seems  best  to  draw  the  line  at  75,000,  and  thus  create  a  dis- 
tinct group  of  larger  cities  in  which  there  is  not  likely  to 
be  any  change  for  some  time  to  come.  To  reduce  the  limit 
to  50.000  would  be  hardly  worth  while,  as  it  would  only 
include  Holvoke  and  Brockton,  where  there  are  no  offices  of 
any  importance.  To  reduce  the  limit  to  25,000  would  in- 
clude Xewton  with  12  offices,  Fitchburg  with  7  offices,  and 
Brookline,  Quincy  and  Pittsfield  with  6  offices  each,  but  this 
would  seem  plainly  undesirable,  as  it  would  also  include  8 
other  widely  scattered  cities  and  towns,  3  of  which  had  no 
offices  and  2  of  which  had  less  than  3  offices. 

Turning  now  to  the  question  of  the  practical  operation  of 
the  system  of  State  control  in  the  larger  cities,  we  urge 
strongly  that  if  the  Legislature  shall  create  the  State  Board 
of  Industrial  Inspection,  as  recommended  by  the  Commis- 
sion on  Factory  Inspection,  the  power  to  license  and  super- 
vise employment  offices  be  given  to  this  board,  in  the  man- 
ner indicated  in  the  bill  hereto  annexed.  The  duties  of  this 
board,  if  it  is  created,  will  be  in  general  to  see  to  the  enforce- 
ment of  many  laws  relating  to  industrial  employment,  which 
are  so  complicated  and  of  such  a  nature  that  to  leave  them  to 
be  enforced  by  ordinary  methods  is  out  of  the  question.  It 
is  not  to  be  expected  that  either  the  ordinary  police  authori- 
ties, or  persons  affected  by  these  laws,  will  be  thoroughly 
enough  informed  in  regard  to  them  to  complain  of  and  to 
prosecute  violations  with  anything  like  satisfactory  thorough- 
ness. A  system  of  regular  inspection  by  trained  inspectors 
is  needed.  The  laws  concerning  employment  offices  are  sim- 
ilar in  character  and  relate  as  well  to  industrial  employment. 


25 

It  seems  to  us  most  fitting  that  the  enforcement  of  these  lawa 
should  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  department  referred 
if  it  is  created. 

We  have  recommended  that  a  special  salaried  official  be 
appointed  by  the  State  Board  of  Industrial  Inspection,  who, 
with  no  other  duties  to  distract  him,  shall  issue  and  revoke 
the  licenses.  This  official  would  be  constantly  in  touch  with 
conditions  through  the  reports  of  trained  inspectors,  and 
wrongdoing  would  be  promptly  punished,  either  by  prosecu- 
tion or  revocation  of  license.  The  office  being  a  special  one 
for  this  purpose  only,  knowledge  and  experience  gained  from 
time  to  time  would  be  accumulated  and  preserved.  Beyond 
this  we  have  given  to  the  board  itself  the  power  to  alter  and 
add  to  the  rules  governing  the  fees  charged  by  employment 
offices.  This  will  insure  the  constant  study  and  investigation 
of  the  problem  by  the  board,  and  we  should  have  a  body, 
apart  from  the  actual  administrative  officers,  at  all  times 
watching  to  see  whether  the  system  of  regulation  was  work- 
ing properly,  and  if  not,  to  make  or  suggest  the  necessary 
changes.  We  believe  that  thoroughness  and  progress  will  re- 
sult if  the  proposed  plan  is  adopted,  and  while  we  do  not 
presume  to  express  any  opinion  as  to  the  general  advantages 
or  disadvantages  that  would  result  from  the  creation  of  the 
new  board,  we  respectfully  suggest  that  its  suitability  for  this 
particular  purpose  be  considered  as  a  possible  argument  in 
favor  of  its  creation. 

We  are  unable  to  make  any  definite  recommendation  as  to 
the  course  to  be  pursued  in  case  the  Legislature  does  not  cre- 
ate the  new  board  in  the  manner  recommended  by  the  Com- 
mission on  Factory  Inspection,  for  we  do  not  know  just  what 
the  situation  will  then  be.  At  the  present  time  we  can  only 
make  the  following  general  suggestions :  — 

First.  —  If  the  Legislature  shall  adopt  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  Factory  Inspection  Commission  so  far  as  to  ere? 
ate  a  new  board,  and  shall  fail  to  carry  onl  such  recommen- 
dations only  in  regard  to  the  constitution  and  powers  of  the 
new  board,  the  question  should  be  considered  whether  the 
new  board  as  created  is  capable  of  taking  over  the  employ- 


26 

nient  office  problem ;  and  if  it  is,  the  problem  should  be  placed 
in  its  hands  under  some  scheme  as  nearly  like  the  scheme 
herein  suggested  as  is  possible. 

Second.  —  If  no  new  board  is  created,  or  if  the  board 
created  is  such  that  the  employment  offices  cannot  be  placed 
under  its  control,  the  next  best  thing,  in  our  opinion,  would 
be  to  place  this  control  in  the  hands  of  the  commission  herein- 
after recommended  to  supervise  the  State  free  employment 
offices.  This  plan  would  have  all  the  advantages  of  the  plan 
originally  suggested  herein,  and  would  probably  have  been 
adopted  as  our  primary  recommendation  except  for  one 
thing,  that  is,  that  it  does  not  seem  quite  fair  to  private 
employment  offices  to  place  them  under  the  control  of  the 
same  department  which  controls  the  State  free  offices. 
There  is  some  danger  that  such  a  department  would  be  to  a 
certain  extent  biased  against  private  offices  and  in  favor  of 
its  own  free  offices,  and  that  the  „  private  offices  might  not 
get,  under  such  conditions,  the  full  opportunity  for  develop- 
ment and  growth  which  we  believe  they  should  have ;  or  at 
all  events,  that  the  situation  might  cause  unnecessary  friction 
and  lack  of  confidence.  It  is  true  that  in  all  other  States 
having  the  State  system  the  same  department  regulates  the 
private  offices  and  controls  the  State  free  offices,  but  we  have 
been  advised  in  regard  to  several  of  these  States  that  the 
system  of  dual  control  does  not  run  smoothly,  and  we  be- 
lieve it  to  be  quite  important  to  separate  the  two  things  if 
possible.  However,  this  is,  after  all,  a  secondary  considera- 
tion, and,  in  our  opinion,  should  be  disregarded  rather  than 
have  the  control  left  with  municipal  authorities  or  pass  to 
any  other  existing  State  department. 

3.  Licenses  should  be  of  Three  Sorts,  designated  as  Class  Iy 
Class  II  and  Class  III,  and  Different  Rules  should 
govern  Each  Class. 

The  employment  offices  existing  in  Massachusetts  to-day 
may  be  divided  into  three  fairly  well-defined  groups,  each  of 
which  so  far  differs  from  the  others  with  reference  to  the 
amount  of  fees  charged  for  services  rendered,  the  time  of  col- 


27 

lecting  such  fees,  and  the  manner  of  refunding  the  same,  that 
if  these  matters  are  to  be  regulated  by  law  it  is  necessary  to 
have  three  sets  of  regulations,  one  for  each  group.  This  was 
recognized  in  the  rules  established  some  years  ago  by  the 
Police  Board  of  Boston  and  still  adhered  to  by  the  present 
Licensing  Board.  These  rules  provide  for  licenses  of  two 
sorts,  each  governed  by  a  separate  set  of  regulations.  This 
classification  covers  two  of  the  three  groups  of  offices  above 
referred  to,  but  does  not  cover  the  third  group  for  the  reason 
that  the  offices  in  that  group  have  not  as  yet  been  required  to 
have  licenses.  We  recommend  the  continuance  of  this  sys- 
tem and  its  application  to  the  whole  State,  but  with  some  al- 
terations, and  the  addition  of  a  third  sort  of  license,  which 
now  becomes  necessary  because  of  the  inclusion  of  all  kinds 
of  offices  in  the  license  system. 

The  plan  suggested  is  a  complicated  one  to  work  out,  and 
because  of  this  we  have  carefully  considered  the  merits  of 
the  simpler  system  in  force  in  Pennsylvania.  There  only 
one  form  of  license  is  issued,  and  there  are  no  regulations  in 
regard  to  fees  except  that  each  licensee  shall  post  a  schedule 
of  the  fees  to  be  charged  and  send  a  copy  of  the  schedule 
to  the  licensing  authority,  and  adhere  to  the  schedule  in 
practice.  This  plan  insures  publicity,  prohibits  the  taking 
of  extortionate  fees  or  bribes  in  special  cases,  and  it  must  be 
admitted  that  competition  among  the  established  offices  is 
undoubtedly  sufficient  to  keep  the  general  run  of  fees  down 
as  low  as  they  can  be  kept  by  regulation.  For  several  rea- 
sons, however,  we  prefer  the  Boston  system  of  classified  reg- 
ulation. In  the  first  place,  that  system  has  the  advantage 
of  standardizing  fees.  It  tends  to  make  fees  and  refunds 
uniform  in  all  offices  of  the  same  kind,  so  that  employees 
will  know  that  wherever  they  go  they  will  receive  the  same 
treatment  in  this  respect,  and  inspectors  will  know,  without 
going  through  a  mass  of  records,  what  fees  each  particular 
office  is  entitled  to  charge.  In  the  second  place,  the  Pennsyl- 
vania system  offers  an  additional  temptation  to  an  unscru- 
pulous person  who  opens  an  office  simply  for  the  purpose  of 
collecting  as  many  fees  as  he  can  with  as  little  work  aa  pos- 


28 

sible  before  knowledge  of  his  methods  or  detection  in  some 
wrongful  act  drives  him  out  of  business.  If  all  fees  are 
limited  there  is  less  chance  for  piratical  excursions  of  this 
sort  into  the  employment  office  field.  Lastly,  we  may  add 
that  all  persons  whom  we  have  interviewed  on  this  subject 
believe  that  the  Pennsylvania  system  should  not  be  adopted 
in  Massachusetts,  and  that  it  is  necessary  to  limit  the  amount 
of  fees  chargeable.  As  above  pointed  out,  regulation  of  fees 
necessarily  means  classification,  because  of  the  different 
kinds  of  employment  offices  in  existence;  and,  therefore,  the 
only  logical  result,  once  it  is  decided  to  regulate  the  fees,  is 
to  adopt  the  Boston  system,  enlarged  to  include  three  groups 
instead  of  two,  as  at  present.  We  now  pass  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  three  groups  of  employment  offices  and  of  the 
rules  that  we  have  suggested  for  each  group. 

4.     Rules  for  Class  I  Licenses. 

The  first  group  of  employment  offices,  for  which  Class  I 
licenses  and  Class  I  rules  are  provided,  consists  principally 
of  the  offices  whose  main  business  is  to  supply  domestic  ser- 
vants. This  group  is  now  known  in  Boston  as  Class  II,  and 
is  governed  by  the  Class  II  rules  of  the  Licensing  Board  of 
Boston,  which  are  printed  in  the  Appendix.  The  chief  char- 
acteristics of  these  rules  are  that  the  fees  allowed  are  small 
compared  with  the  fees  charged  by  offices  in  other  groups ; 
that  the  employer  pays  a  fee  as  well  as  the  employee,  and  that 
fees  are  collected  in  advance  of  the  actual  beginning  of  the 
employment,  with  a  suitable  provision  for  refund  in  case  the 
expected  employment  does  not  take  place.  We  believe  that 
these  rules  are,  on  the  whole,  satisfactory  and  sufficient,  and 
have  adopted  their  principal  features  with  some  changes, 
which  are  explained  below. 

As  to  the  maximum  fees  to  be  charged  we  have  made  no 
change.  The  amount  now  allowed  is  one-fourth  of  a  week's 
wages  in  the  case  of  male  employees  and  one-fifth  of  the  week's 
wages  in  the  case  of  female  employees.  It  may  seem  strange 
at  first  sight  that  an  office  in  this  group  may  charge  only  $2 
for  placing  a  cook  who  earns  $10  a  week  while  an  office  in  the 


29 

mercantile  group  may  charge  $10  for  placing  a  bookkeeper  at 
the  same  wages.  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  the 
employment  obtained  by  offices  in  this  group  is  in  many  cases 
not  of  long  duration;  that  it  offers  practically  no  opportunity 
for  promotion  or  advancement,  and  that  the  employee  out  of 
work  comes  back  to  the  office  for  another  position  and  pays 
another  fee  with  much  more  regularity  than  in  the  mercantile 
or  business  group.  It  must  also  be  remembered  that  the 
shortage  of  the  supply  of  employees  in  this  group  makes  it 
possible  to  charge  the  employer  a  fee  equal  to  that  charged  the 
employee,  so  that,  although  the  fee  allowed  in  the  case  of  a 
$10  cook  is  only  $2,  this  fee  is  collected  twice,  and  the  office 
earns  $4.  It  is  likewise  beyond  question  that  the  shortage  of 
employees  makes  employers  more  dependent  upon  the  employ- 
ment offices  in  this  group,  so  that  a  greater  proportion  of 
them  seek  the  services  of  the  offices  without  solicitation,  in- 
stead of  trying  to  obtain  employees  in  other  ways.  This 
makes  the  task  of  the  offices  easier.  Under  all  the  circum- 
stances we  are  satisfied  that  the  fees  allowed  by  the  Boston 
rules  for  this  group  are  large  enough,  and  we  find  in  prac- 
tice that  they  are  perfectly  satisfactory  to  all  office  keepers 
in  Boston,  and  not  exceeded  by  reputable  offices  elsewhere  in 
the  State,  except,  perhaps,  in  a  few  isolated  cases,  where  a 
flat  rate  is  charged,  which  exceeds  the  fractions  above  men- 
tioned in  the  case  of  low-paid  positions.  A  slight  readjust- 
ment could  be  made  without  hardship  in  these  few  instances. 
Some  employers  have  suggested  to  us  that  a  flat  rate  should 
be  established  in  place  of  the  sliding  scale.  It  is  said  in  sup- 
port of  this  suggestion  that  the  office  does  as  much  work  in 
placing  $4  servants  as  in  placing  $10  servants,  so  that  a  flat 
rate  would  be  more  equitable.  It  is  said,  further,  that  under 
the  sliding  scale  the  office  is  tempted  to  influence  employees  to 
demand  higher  wages,  so  that  the  office  may  get  larger  f< 
We  do  not  feel  the  force  of  these  arguments  We  are  inclined 
to  think  that  in  the  average  case  more  trouble  and  pains  are 
involved  in  placing  a  highly  paid  servant  than  in  placing  a 
low-paid  servant.  In  any  event,  the  employment  offices  need 
all  they  can  earn  under  the  present  system,  and  i'  Beems  t<>  as 


30 

much  fairer  that  the  higher-paid  servants  should  continue  to 
pay  what  they  now  do  than  that  the  lower-paid  servants  should 
be  charged  more.  The  fear  that  under  the  sliding  scale  the  of- 
fices induce  servants  to  get  more  than  they  are  worth  appears 
to  us  groundless.  Servants  are,  of  course,  always  trying  to 
get  as  much  as  they  can  without  the  help  of  the  offices,  and 
even  with  such  help  they  cannot  possibly  get  more  than  the 
employers,  as  a  whole,  are  ready  to  pay.  If  the  influence  of 
the  office  does  in  fact  help  servants  to  get  as  much  as  they  are 
worth  to  employers  instead  of  taking  less  we  see  nothing  to 
complain  of. 

As  to  the  time  of  collecting  the  fees,  we  have  made  no 
change  in  the  Boston  rules.  It  is  ordinarily  dangerous  to 
permit  offices  to  collect  their  fees  before  the  employment  is 
actually  secured.  The  office  is  tempted  to  exaggerate  the 
chances  of  obtaining  employment  so  as  to  induce  as  many 
employees  as  possible  to  pay  their  fees,  for  if  the  fees  are 
once  paid  a  certain  proportion  of  those  who  paid  them  will 
neglect  to  come  back  and  reclaim  them  even  if  employment 
is  not  secured,  and  a  further  proportion,  instead  of  insisting 
upon  a  refund  and  looking  elsewhere  for  employment,  will 
wait  around  until  the  office  finally  secures  them  positions. 
In  this  particular  group  of  offices,  however,  the  fees  are  small 
and  the  employment  is  not  of  a  business  nature,  and  under 
these  circumstances  the  loss  and  expense  of  collecting  the 
fees  after  the  employment  has  been  secured  would  be  out  of 
all  proportion  to  the  amount  involved.  Therefore  we  believe 
that  the  Boston  rules  are  right  in  permitting  the  fees  to  be 
collected  from  employees  either  when  the  employee  is  en- 
gaged at  the  office  or  sent  from  the  office  to  apply  for  em- 
ployment, with  a  suitable  provision  for  refund  if  employment 
is  not  secured.  We  see  no  objection  to  the  provision  allow- 
ing fees  to  be  collected  from  employers  at  the  time  of  appli- 
cation, for  they  are  amply  able  to  look  out.  for  themselves. 

The  first  change  which  we  have  made  in  the  Boston  rules 
is  to  add  a  provision  governing  the  amount  of  fees  chargeable 
for  temporary  employment,  as  to  which  those  rules  contain 
no   provision.     We  have   adopted  two  weeks  as  the  period 


31 

of  employment  for  which  the  full  fees  may  be  charged. 
For  employment  of  this  length  the  fees  allowed  amount  to 
one-eighth  and  one-tenth  of  the  total  amount  earned  in  the 
case  of  males  and  females,  respectively.  For  shorter  em- 
ployment we  have  preserved  these  same  fractions,  and  lim- 
ited the  fee  to  one-eighth  and  one-tenth,  respectively,  of  the 
amount  earned  during  the  engagement.  This  seems  to  us  a 
necessary  and  obviously  fair  provision. 

Several  changes  have  been  made  in  the  Boston  rules  as  to 
the  refunding  of  fees.  The  rules  provide  for  a  refunding  of 
the  total  fee  paid  by  an  employee  sent  to  apply  for  employment 
if  the  expected  employment  is  not  secured,  and  of  the  total 
fee  paid  by  an  employer  who  has  applied  for  but  does  not 
engage  an  employee.  We  have  added  a  provision  for  refund 
to  an  employee  who,  after  being  engaged  by  an  employer,  is 
not  permitted  to  go  to  work,  and  a  provision  for  refund  to  an 
employer  if  the  employee^  after  being  engaged,  fails  to  report 
for  duty.  Such  disappointments  sometimes  occur  on  both 
sides,  and  among  the  best  offices  a  refund  is  always  allowed 
to  the  person  disappointed.  It  is  quite  clear,  we  think,  that  a 
refund  under  such  circumstances  should  be  made  obligatory 
upon  all  offices. 

The  Boston  rules  contain  provisions  to  the  effect  that  two- 
fifths  of  the  fee  paid  by  an  employee  shall  be  refunded  if 
the  employee  is  discharged  within  ten  days,  and  that  the 
same  portion  of  the  fee  paid  by  an  employer  shall  be  re- 
funded if  the  employee  leaves  within  ten  days.  These  pro- 
visions rest,  of  course,  upon  the  principle  that  the  office 
should  not  be  entitled  to  the  whole  fee  unless  it  does  it- 
work  honestly,  carefully  and  well  enough  to  insure  at  least 
ten  days  of  work  for  an  employee  and  ten  days  of  service 
for  an  employer.  It  may  be  argued  against  this  principle 
that  the  work  of  the  office  is  done  when  the  parties  are 
brought  together  and  enter  into  their  contract;  that  they 
have  then  had  an  opportunity  to  interview  each  other,  and 
have  voluntarily  decided  to  assume  the  relation  of  employer 
and  employee,  and  that  it  is  their  lookout  and  not  the  lookout 
of  the  office  if  the  contract  into  which  they  enter  with  their 


32 

eyes  open  does  not  work  well.  In  spite  of  this  argument, 
however,  we  believe  that  because  of  the  possibility  of  misrep- 
resentation and  even  actual  collusion  on  the  part  of  the 
office  keeper  the  principle  underlying  the  provisions  in  ques- 
tion is  sound,  and  that  offices  should  guarantee  a  certain 
duration  of  employment  in  order  to  retain  the  whole  fee. 
We  have,  however,  made  some  changes  in  the  rules  based 
upon  this  principle.  Having  adopted  two  weeks  as  the 
period  of  employment  for  which  the  full  fee  may  be  charged 
at  the  outset,  we  believe  that  two  weeks  of  employment  in- 
stead of  ten  days  should  actually  result  in  order  that  the 
full  fee  may  be  retained.  Having  made  this  change,  it  is 
obvious  that  two-fifths  of  the  fee  is  too  much  to  refund  if  the 
employment  lasts  until  within  a  day  or  two  of  the  full  two 
weeks,  and  we  also  believe  that  two-fifths  is  too  small  a 
refund  if  the  employment  terminates  within  a  day  or  two 
after  it  begins.  Why  should  three-fifths  of  the  fee  paid 
by  an  employer  be  retained  if  the  employee  stays  but  one 
day;  and  why  should  a  housemaid  who  is  engaged  at  $6  a 
week,  and  has  paid  $1.20,  expecting  a  permanent  position, 
get  back  only  48  cents  if  she  is  discharged  the  day  after  her 
arrival  ?  We  think  it  fairer  to  make  the  refund  proportion- 
ate to  the  time  during  which  the  employment  actually  con- 
tinues, that  is,  to  allow  the  office  to  retain  one-eighth  and  one- 
tenth,  respectively,  of  the  wages  of  the  employee  for  that 
period,  and  compel  a  refund  of  the  rest. 

We  also  believe  that  the  refunds  in  case  of  the  termination 
of  employment  within  two  weeks  should  be  made  to  both  par- 
ties in  all  cases,  without  inquiring  into  the  cause  of  the  ter- 
mination of  the  employment.  It  is  often  very  difficult  to 
determine  whether  the  employer  or  the  employee  in  fact  ter- 
minated the  employment.  Oftentimes  each  will  contend  that 
the  other  did  so,  or  at  all  events  that  it  was  caused  by  the 
wrongful  act  of  the  other.  If  the  right  to  a  refund  is  to  de- 
pend upon  these  difficult  and  often  disputed  questions  of  fact 
many  refunds  would  be  lost,  for  the  game  of  establishing  the 
facts  will  be  hardly  worth  the  candle.  Furthermore,  we  think 
it  not  at  all  unfair  that  each  party  to  the  employment  contract 


33 

should  have  a  trial  period  in  which  to  test  the  suitability 
the  arrangement  recommended  by  the  office,  and  if  that  ar- 
rangement proves  unsatisfactory,  should  pay  only  for  the  time 

-pent  in  testing  it  out.  For  all  of  the  above  reasons  we  have 
suggested  a  rule  which  provides  simply  that  if  the  employ- 
ment terminates  within  two  weeks  the  office  may  retain  one- 
eighth  or  one-tenth,  respectively,  of  the  wages  for  the  period 
during  which  the  employment  continues,  and  shall  refund  the 
balance  to  both  employer  and  employee.  This  is  a  perfectly 
simple,  workable  rule,  involving  no  difficult  questions  of  fact. 
It  will  tend  to  make  the  office  particularly  careful  to  bring 
together  employers  and  employees  who  will  be  suited  to  each 
other,  and  in  our  opinion  is  more  satisfactory  than  the  pres- 
ent rule. 

The  refunds  provided  for  by  the  Boston  rules  are  not  abso- 
lute and  unconditional.  If  an  employer  demands  a  refund 
the  office  is  allowed  four  days  of  grace  in  which  to  furnish 
another  employee,  and  if  this  is  done  the  refund  need  not  be 
made.  Similarly,  if  an  employee  demands  a  refund  the  office 
has  four  days  in  which  to  furnish  another  situation.  In  our 
opinion  the  right  to  refunds  should  be  absolute  and  uncondi- 
tional. We  have  found  that  under  the  present  system  many 
offices  are  extremely  retentive  of  fees  once  collected.  The 
inch  of  leeway  allowed  is  easily  stretched  to  an  ell  by  con- 
stantly referring  the  applicant  to  place  after  place  at  which 
there  is  little  hope  of  employment,  and  by  plausible  state- 
ments about  something  turning  up  soon,  and  it  is  undoubtedly 
true  that  an  office  which  can  collect  and  retain  a  fee  from  an 
applicant  can  easily  make  the  applicant  wait  until  it  secures 
her  a  position,  whereas  if  the  fee  had  been  refunded  the  appli- 
cant might  have  secured  a  position  much  more  quickly  in 
some  other  way.  We  recommend,  therefore,  that  an  appli- 
cant who  has  paid  a  fee  for  employment  which  does  n<>t  ma- 
terialize should  have  an  immediate  and  absolute  right  t<>  a 
refund.  The  office  will  be  amply  protected,  because  when  an- 
other position  is  recommended  the  fee  may  be  again  collected. 
It  would,  of  course,  make  useless  bother  if  all  fees  were  t<>  be 
refunded  and  recollected  in  this  fashion  until  employment 


34 

was  actually  secured,  but  there  is  no  need  of  this  in  practice. 
In  most  cases  where  the  office  is  known  to  be  doing  its  best, 
fees  once  paid  will  undoubtedly  be  left  on  deposit  until  em- 
ployment is  secured.  Our  point  is  simply  that  if  the  appli- 
cant wants  a  refund  the  right  to  it  should  be  absolute  and 
immediate. 

The  only  other  change  which  we  have  to  recommend  in 
regard  to  the  rules  applicable  to  Class  I  licenses  is  to  omit 
altogether  the  statement  of  the  kinds  of  employment  with 
reference  to  which  persons  holding  such  licenses  may  conduct 
their  business,  and  to  permit  them  to  act  with  reference  to 
all  kinds  of  employment  so  long  as  they  observe  the  rules  as 
to  fees  and  refunds.  The  managers  of  employment  offices 
in  this  group  who  are  now  subject  to  the  Class  II  rules  of  the 
Licensing  Board  of  Boston  have  stated  to  us  repeatedly  that 
there  are  certain  kinds  of  employees  for  whom  they  could 
and  would  secure  positions  except  for  the  fact  that  such  em- 
ployee- are  not  included  within  the  kinds  of  employments 
mentioned  in  the  rules.  As  the  offices  in  this  group  charge 
lower  fees  than  those  in  any  other  group,  it  is  obvious  that 
they  ought  to  be  allowed  to  operate  in  any  branch  of  employ- 
ment in  which  the  work  done  by  them  is  satisfactory  to  em- 
ployers and  employees.  The  attempt  to  define  the  occupations 
with  which  they  shall  deal  is  therefore  useless.  TVith  refer- 
ence to  the  other  groups  of  offices,  in  which  larger  fees  are 
permitted,  it  will  be  necessary  to  consider  whether  certain 
kinds  of  employment  ought  not  to  be  forbidden  in  order  that 
for  those  kinds  of  employment  the  lower  fees  of  this  group 
should  prevail.  But  here  we  have  a  group  in  which  the  low- 
fees  of  all  are  charged,  and  we  can  see  no  reason  for  pro- 
hibiting offices  in  this  group  from  doing  any  kind  of  work 
which  they  can  get.  If  the  result  of  this  is  to  take  away 
some  business  from  the  other  groups  of  offices  it  will  be,  after 
all,  only  fair  competition,  and  a  gain  will  be  made  by  having 
the  work  done  at  lower  fees.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  incon- 
ceivable that  much  business  would  be  taken  away  from  the 
other  pTonps,  for  they  deal  mainly  with  branches  of  employ- 
ment in  which  the  supply  of  employees  exceeds  the  demand. 


35 

Because  of  this,  employers  will  not  pay  fees,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  task  of  the  employment  office  is  more  difficult.  It 
is  idle  to  suppose  that  offices  in  this  group  could  afford  to  do 
enough  work  to  get  this  sort  of  business  for  the  very  small  fee 
which  they  could  charge  to  the  employees.  The  whole  effect 
of  allowing  this  group  of  offices  to  operate  in  all  kinds  of 
employment  would  be,  therefore,  that  in  certain  particular 
instances,  not  now  enumerated  in  the  Boston  rules,  they 
could  do  work  which  they  are  now  prevented  from  doing. 

5.     Rules  for  Class  II  Licenses. 

The  type  of  employment  office  for  which  Class  II  licenses 
and  Class  II  rules  are  provided  is  the  one  which  deals  gener- 
ally with  all  kinds  of  employment  in  business,  using  the  word 
business  in  its  broadest  sense,  to  include  all  kinds  of  manu- 
facturing, mechanical  and  mercantile  establishments,  profes- 
sional offices,  hotels  and  restaurants,  and,  in  general,  all 
enterprises  conducted  for  profit.  Such  offices  are  at  present 
known  in  Boston  as  Class  I  offices,  and  are  subject  to  the 
Class  I  rules  printed  in  the  Appendix.  These  rules  allow  a 
fee  equal  to  one  week's  wages  to  be  charged  the  employee  for 
each  position  secured,  but  do  not  limit  at  all  the  fee  charged 
the  employer.  We  have  followed  the  rules  in  both  these  re- 
spects. 

As  has  been  pointed  out  before,  the  supply  of  employees 
in  this  group  constantly  exceeds  the  demand.  For  every  va- 
cant position  there  are  numbers  of  workers  lower  down  in  the 
scale  of  employment  to  whom  the  position  would  be  a  step 
in  advance.  The  condition  of  affairs  is  illustrated  by  the 
number  of  correspondence  schools  which  advertise  so  freely 
under  such  headlines  as  "  increase  your  wages,"  or  "  are  you 
getting  ahead  ? ':  Whether  or  not  there  are  immediately 
available  persons  out  of  employment  to  fill  vacancies  as  fast 
as  they  occur  in  all  communities,  the  fact  remains  that  each 
vacant  position  in  this  field  of  employment  represents  t<>  ;i 
t  number  of  workers  a  higher  rung  on  the  ladder  than  they 
have  yet  reached,  and  one  which  they  are  eager  to  grasp. 
This  fact  explains  at  the  same  time  why  it  is  not  nece>-arv 


36 

to  regulate  the  fees  charged  employers,  and  why  the  fees 
charged  to  employees  must  be  larger  than  in  the  case  of  the 
first  group  of  offices.  It  is  not  necessary  to  regulate  the  fees 
charged  to  employers  simply  because  they  can  obtain  employ- 
ees so  readily  without  the  services  of  an  employment  office 
that  they  will  not  pay  fees  at  all.  It  is  necessary  to  charge 
higher  fees  to  employees  partly  because  the  employers  pay 
nothing  and  partly  because  the  offices  must  do  more  work. 
They  must  solicit  employers  to  deal  with  them,  and  take  great 
pains  to  satisfy  them  in  order  to  prevent  them  from  filling 
their  vacancies  in  other  ways ;  as,  for  example,  by  advertise- 
ment, by  the  posting  of  notices,  from  persons  suggested  by 
employees  already  in  their  service,  or  from  waiting  lists  of 
voluntary  applicants.  Employees  who  obtain  this  sort  of 
service  from  an  employment  office  must  expect  to  pay  for  it, 
for  to  employees  who  are  worthy  of  having  such  work  done 
for  them  each  position  so  secured  will  mean  in  a  large  num- 
ber of  cases  a  step  in  advance,  permanent  employment  for  a 
long  period,  and  the  possibility  of  further  advancement  in 
the  future.  The  fee  of  one  week's  wages  allowed  by  the  Bos- 
ton rules  has  been  established  and  maintained  as  the  result 
of  long  experience.  It  does  not  enable  licensees  to  earn  more 
than  fair  compensation,  and  we  are  satisfied  that  it  is  in 
every  way  fair  and  reasonable.  We  have  not  been  asked  to 
recommend  a  higher  fee,  and  the  character  and  ability  of  the 
managers  of  the  leading  Boston  offices  in  this  group  show 
plainly  that  no  such  recommendation  is  necessary. 

We  have  also  followed  the  Boston  rules  as  to  this  group  in 
forbidding  the  collection  of  the  fee  until  the  employment  is 
actually  begun.  This  is  always  desirable  if  practicable,  and 
experience  in  Boston  has  shown  that  in  this  group  of  offices 
it  is  practicable,  even  when  only  half  a  week's  wages  is 
charged. 

As  to  the  term  of  employment  for  which  the  whole  fee  may 
be  charged,  the  amount  allowed  for  shorter  employment  and 
the  refund  to  be  made  if  the  employment  terminates  sooner 
than  expected,  we  have  followed  the  Boston  rules,  with  two 
changes.     Our   rules    provide  that  if  employment  does  not 


37 

actually  lasl  six  weeks  (for  which  period  the  fee  allowed 
would  be  one-sixth  of  the  total  amount  earned)  the  total 
amount  collected  and  retained  shall  not  exceed  one-sixth  of 
the  wages  for  the  period  during  which  the  employment  actu- 
ally continued,  that  is,  one-sixth  of  a  week's  wages  for  each 
week  and  a  corresponding  portion  of  a  week's  wTages  for  each 
fraction  of  a  week.  The  first  respect  in  which  this  differs 
from  the  Boston  rules  is  that  they  allow  the  office  to  retain 
one-sixth  of  a  week's  wages  for  each  week  of  actual  employ- 
ment and  an  additional  one-sixth  of  a  week's  wages  for  a 
fraction  of  a  week.  Certain  office  keepers  suggested  to  us 
that  this  should  be  changed,  and  it  seems  to  us  fairer  that  the 
office  should  not  retain  one-sixth  of  a  week's  wages  for  a  frac- 
tion of  a  week  of  employment,  but  only  a  corresponding  por- 
tion of  that  amount.  The  second  departure  from  the  Boston 
rules  on  this  point  is  that  by  our  rules  the  same  refund  is 
always  required  if  the  employment  terminates  with  six  weeks, 
without  reference  to  the  cause  or  manner  of  termination. 
The  Boston  rules  require  the  refund  only  in  case  the  em- 
ployee is  discharged,  except  that  if  he  voluntarily  leaves 
within  three  weeks  he  may  reclaim  three-fifths  of  the  fee. 
The  last  part  of  the  above  provision  is  a  step  in  the  right 
direction,  but  it  will  be  seen  that  if  the  employment  termi- 
nates during  the  last  three  weeks  of  the  six  weeks'  period  the 
employee  can  get  no  refund  without  proving  that  he  was  dis- 
charged, and  that  if  the  employment  terminates  within  a  day 
or  two  after  it  begins  he  can  get  back  no  more  than  three- 
fifths  of  his  fee  without  proving  that  he  was  discharged.  For 
the  reasons  fully  explained  under  the  Class  I  rules  we  believe 
it  advisable  to  avoid  all  disputes  on  questions  of  fact,  and  to 
allow  the  employee  a  probationary  or  trial  period  at  the  risk 
of  the  office  by  providing  the  same  proportional  refund  for 
short  employment  in  all  ca<os,  without  reference  to  the  cause 
of  termination. 

We  come  now  to  the  consideration  of  a  departure  from  the 
Boston  rules  ;i-  applicable  to  tin-  group  of  offices,  which  is 
of  much  more  significance  than  the  points  already  discuss 
A-  in  the  case  of  Class  1  licenses,  we  have  omitted  the  enu- 


34 

was  actually  secured,  but  there  is  no  need  of  this  in  practice. 
In  most  cases  where  the  office  is  known  to  be  doing  its  best, 
fees  once  paid  will  undoubtedly  be  left  on  deposit  until  em- 
ployment is  secured.  Our  point  is  simply  that  if  the  appli- 
cant wants  a  refund  the  right  to  it  should  be  absolute  and 
immediate. 

The  only  other  change  which  we  have  to  recommend  in 
regard  to  the  rules  applicable  to  Class  I  licenses  is  to  omit 
altogether  the  statement  of  the  kinds  of  employment  with 
reference  to  which  persons  holding  such  licenses  may  conduct 
their  business,  and  to  permit  them  to  act  with  reference  to 
all  kinds  of  employment  so  long  as  they  observe  the  rules  as 
to  fees  and  refunds.  The  managers  of  employment  offices 
in  this  group  who  are  now  subject  to  the  Class  II  rules  of  the 
Licensing  Board  of  Boston  have  stated  to  us  repeatedly  that 
there  are  certain  kinds  of  employees  for  whom  they  could 
and  would  secure  positions  except  for  the  fact  that  such  em- 
ployees are  not  included  within  the  kinds  of  employments 
mentioned  in  the  rules.  As  the  offices  in  this  group  charge 
lower  fees  than  those  in  any  other  group,  it  is  obvious  that 
they  ought  to  be  allowed  to  operate  in  any  branch  of  employ- 
ment in  which  the  work  done  by  them  is  satisfactory  to  em- 
ployers and  employees.  The  attempt  to  define  the  occupations 
with  which  they  shall  deal  is  therefore  useless.  With  refer- 
ence to  the  other  groups  of  offices,  in  which  larger  fees  are 
permitted,  it  will  be  necessary  to  consider  whether  certain 
kinds  of  employment  ought  not  to  be  forbidden  in  order  that 
for  those  kinds  of  employment  the  lower  fees  of  this  group 
should  prevail.  But  here  we  have  a  group  in  which  the  low- 
est fees  of  all  are  charged,  and  we  can  see  no  reason  for  pro- 
hibiting offices  in  this  group  from  doing  any  kind  of  work 
which  they  can  get.  If  the  result  of  this  is  to  take  away 
some  business  from  the  other  groups  of  offices  it  will  be,  after 
all,  only  fair  competition,  and  a  gain  will  be  made  by  having 
the  work  done  at  lower  fees.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  incon- 
ceivable  that  much  business  would  be  taken  away  from  the 
other  groups^  for  they  deal  mainly  with  branches  of  employ- 
ment in  which  the  supply  of  employees  exceeds  the  demand. 


35 

Because  of  this,  employers  will  not  pay  foes,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  task  of  the  employment  office  is  more  difficult.  It 
is  idle  to  suppose  that  offices  in  this  group  could  afford  to  do 
enough  work  to  get  this  sort  of  business  for  the  very  small  fee 
which  they  could  charge  to  the  employees.  The  whole  effect 
of  allowing  this  group  of  offices  to  operate  in  all  kinds  of 
employment  would  be,  therefore,  that  in  certain  particular 
instances,  not  now  enumerated  in  the  Boston  rules,  they 
could  do  work  wThich  they  are  now  prevented  from  doing. 

5.     Rules  for  Class  II  Licenses. 

The  type  of  employment  office  for  which  Class  II  licenses 
and  Class  II  rules  are  provided  is  the  one  which  deals  gener- 
ally with  all  kinds  of  employment  in  business,  using  the  word 
business  in  its  broadest  sense,  to  include  all  kinds  of  manu- 
facturing, mechanical  and  mercantile  establishments,  profes- 
sional offices,  hotels  and  restaurants,  and,  in  general,  all 
enterprises  conducted  for  profit.  Such  offices  are  at  present 
known  in  Boston  as  Class  I  offices,  and  are  subject  to  the 
Class  I  rules  printed  in  the  Appendix.  These  rules  allow  a 
fee  equal  to  one  week's  wages  to  be  charged  the  employee  for 
each  position  secured,  but  do  not  limit  at  all  the  fee  charged 
the  employer.  We  have  followed  the  rules  in  both  these  re- 
spects. 

As  has  been  pointed  out  before,  the  supply  of  employees 
in  this  group  constantly  exceeds  the  demand.  For  every  va- 
cant position  there  are  numbers  of  workers  lower  down  in  the 
scale  of  employment  to  whom  the  position  would  be  a  step 
in  advance.  The  condition  of  affairs  is  illustrated  by  the 
number  of  correspondence  schools  which  advertise  so  freely 
under  such  headlines  as  "  increase  your  wages,"  or  "  are  you 
getting  ahead  ? ,:  Whether  or  not  there  are  immediately 
available  persons  out  of  employment  to  fill  vacancies  as  fast 
as  they  occur  in  all  communities,  the  fact  remains  that  each 
vacant  position  in  this  field  of  employment  represents  to  a 

-t  number  of  workers  a  higher  rung  on  the  ladder  than  they 
have  yet  reached,  and  one  which  they  are  eager  to  grasp. 
This  fact  explains  at  the  same  time  why  it  is  nol  necessary 


36 

to   regulate  the  fees  charged  employers,   and  why  the  fees 
charged  to  employees  must  be  larger  than  in  the  case  of  the 
first  group  of  offices.     It  is  not  necessary  to  regulate  the  fees 
charged  to  employers  simply  because  they  can  obtain  employ- 
ees so  readily  without  the  services  of  an  employment  office 
that  they  will  not  pay  fees  at  all.     It  is  necessary  to  charge 
higher  fees  to  employees  partly  because  the  employers  pay 
nothing  and  partly  because  the  offices  must  do  more  work. 
They  must  solicit  employers  to  deal  with  them,  and  take  great 
pains  to  satisfy  them  in  order  to  prevent  them  from  filling 
their  vacancies  in  other  ways ;  as,  for  example,  by  advertise- 
ment, by  the  posting  of  notices,  from  persons  suggested  by 
employees  already  in  their  service,  or  from  waiting  lists  of 
voluntary   applicants.     Employees  who   obtain  this   sort   of 
service  from  an  employment  office  must  expect  to  pay  for  it, 
for  to  employees  who  are  worthy  of  having  such  work  done 
for  them  each  position  so  secured  will  mean  in  a  large  num- 
ber of  cases  a  step  in  advance,  permanent  employment  for  a 
long  period,  and  the  possibility  of  further  advancement  in 
the  future.     The  fee  of  one  week's  wages  allowed  by  the  Bos- 
ton rules  has  been  established  and  maintained  as  the  result 
of  long  experience.     It  does  not  enable  licensees  to  earn  more 
than  fair  compensation,   and  we  are  satisfied  that  it  is  in 
every  way  fair  and  reasonable.     We  have  not  been  asked  to 
recommend  a  higher  fee,  and  the  character  and  ability  of  the 
managers  of  the  leading  Boston  offices  in  this  group  show 
plainly  that  no  such  recommendation  is  necessary. 

We  have  also  followed  the  Boston  rules  as  to  this  group  in 
forbidding  the  collection  of  the  fee  until  the  employment  is 
actually  begun.  This  is  always  desirable  if  practicable,  and 
experience  in  Boston  has  shown  that  in  this  group  of  offices 
it  is  practicable,  even  when  only  half  a  week's  wages  is 
charged. 

Aj  to  the  term  of  employment  for  which  the  whole  fee  may 
be  charged,  the  amount  allowed  for  shorter  employment  and 
the  refund  to  be  made  if  the  employment  terminates  sooner 
than  expected,  we  have  followed  the  Boston  rules,  with  two 
changes.      Our   rules   provide   that   if  employment   does   not 


37 

actually  lasl   six  weeks   (for  which  period   the  fee  allowed 

would  be  one-sixth  of  the  total  amount  earned)  the  total 
amount  collected  and  retained  shall  not  exceed  one-sixth  of 
the  wages  for  the  period  during  which  the  employment  actu- 
ally continued,  that  is,  one-sixth  of  a  week's  wages  for  each 
week  and  a  corresponding  portion  of  a  week's  wages  for  each 
fraction  of  a  week.  The  first  respect  in  which  this  differs 
from  the  Boston  rules  is  that  they  allow  the  office  to  retain 
one-sixth  of  a  week's  wages  for  each  week  of  actual  employ- 
ment and  an  additional  one-sixth  of  a  week's  wage?  for  a 
fraction  of  a  week.  Certain  office  keepers  suggested  to  us 
that  this  should  be  changed,  and  it  seems  to  us  fairer  that  the 
office  should  not  retain  one-sixth  of  a  week's  wages  for  a  frac- 
tion of  a  week  of  employment,  but  only  a  corresponding  por- 
tion of  that  amount.  The  second  departure  from  the  Boston 
rules  on  this  point  is  that  by  our  rules  the  same  refund  is 
always  required  if  the  employment  terminates  with  six  weeks, 
without  reference  to  the  cause  or  manner  of  termination. 
The  Boston  rules  require  the  refund  only  in  case  the  em- 
ployee is  discharged,  except  that  if  he  voluntarily  leaves 
within  three  weeks  he  may  reclaim  three-fifths  of  the  fee. 
The  last  part  of  the  above  provision  is  a  step  in  the  right 
direction,  but  it  wrill  be  seen  that  if  the  employment  termi- 
nates during  the  last  three  weeks  of  the  six  weeks'  period  the 
employee  can  get  no  refund  without  proving  that  he  was  dis- 
charged, and  that  if  the  employment  terminates  within  a  day 
or  two  after  it  begins  he  can  get  back  no  more  than  three- 
fifths  of  his  fee  without  proving  that  he  was  discharged.  For 
the  reasons  fully  explained  under  the  Class  I  rules  we  believe 
it  advisable  to  avoid  aH  disputes  on  questions  of  fact,  and  to 
allow  the  employee  a  probationary  or  trial  period  at  the  risk 
of  the  office  by  providing  the  same  proportional  refund  \'i>v 
short  employment  in  all  cases,  without  reference  to  the  cause 
of  termination. 

We  come  now  to  the  consideration  of  a  departure  from  the 
Boston  rules  as  applicable  to  this  group  of  offices,  which  is 
of  much  more  significance  than  the  point--  already  discussed. 
A,s  in  the  case  of  Class  1  licenses,  we  have  omitted  the  enu- 


38 

meration  of  the  kinds  of  employment  with  reference  to  which 
licensees  may  do  business.  It  is  clear  that  the  only  possible 
reason  for  such  an  enumeration  is  to  make  sure  that  certain 
kinds  of  employment  will  be  dealt  with  at  the  lower  scale  of 
fees  permitted  for  Class  I  licensees.  Class  III  licenses  are 
intended,  as  will  appear  later,  for  a  group  of  specialized  em- 
ployment offices  which  do  special  work  in  some  particular 
branch  of  employment,  and  such  licenses  can  only  be  obtained 
by  satisfying  the  licensing  authority  that  in  view  of  the  spe- 
cial nature  of  the  work  the  business  cannot  be  carried  on 
under  Class  I  or  Class  II  rules.  There  can  be  no  reason 
whatever  for  excluding  the  general  mercantile  offices  from 
any  branch  of  employment  in  which  a  special  agency  is  at 
work.  If  in  competition  with  the  special  agencies  the  mer- 
cantile offices  can  get  the  business  or  any  part  of  it  under 
rules  which  are  found  satisfactory  for  all  kinds  of  employ- 
ment generally,  there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  they 
should  not  do  so.  Is  it  then  necessary  to  provide  that  certain 
kinds  of  employment  should  be  handled  only  at  the  lower 
scale  of  fees  permitted  by  the  Class  I  rules  ?  In  our  opinion 
this  is  not  necessary.  The  greater  part  of  the  business  which 
we  should  include  in  such  a  provision  if  we  were  to  adopt  it 
will  not  stand  higher  fees  than  those  permitted  by  the  Class 
I  rules,  and  is  of  such  a  nature  that  the  advance  collection  of 
fees  is  a  practical  necessity.  If  any  particular  office  should 
attempt,  for  example,  to  place  domestic  servants  under  a 
Class  II  license  it  would  find,  first,  that  the  competition  of 
the  other  domestic  offices  would  prevent  it  from  charging 
higher  fees ;  and  second,  that  such  fees  as  it  did  charge  could 
not  be  collected  in  advance.  In  addition  to  this  it  would 
have  to  pay  a  higher  license  fee  for  the  privilege  of  making 
an  obviously  unwise  venture.  We  are  satisfied,  therefore, 
that  in  the  main  employees  now  served  by  the  offices  for 
whom  Class  I  licenses  are  provided  need  not  have  the  slight- 
est fear  that  those  offices  will  take  out  Class  II  licenses  and 
charge  them  higher  fees. 

It  may  still  be  urged  against  the  plan  proposed  that  even 
if  the  established  offices  would  elect  to  take  Class  I  licenses 


39 

for  all  the  business  that  we  should  like  to  have  done  under 
(  lass  I  rules  it  would  still  be  possible  for  the  unscrupulous 
adventurer  to  take  a  Class  II  license  for  the  purpose  of  fraud- 
ulently collecting  large  fees  for  a  short  time,  and  that  we 
ourselves  have  urged  the  limitation  of  fees  in  order  to  lessen 
the  temptation  to  engage  in  adventures  of  this  sort.  Our 
previous  remarks,  howTever,  were  directed  against  the  Penn- 
sylvania system  of  allowing  each  office  to  fix  its  own  fees,  — 
a  system  under  which  no  fixed  standards  or  well-defined 
groups  of  offices  are  provided  for.  Under  the  system  which 
we  propose  there  appears  to  us  no  question  that  reputable  of- 
fices of  the  first  group  will  take  out  Class  I  licenses  and  form 
a  well-defined  class  with  a  fixed  standard  of  fees.  Under 
these  circumstances  the  unscrupulous  adventurer  will  adver- 
tise himself  for  what  he  is  by  attempting  to  disregard  the 
established  and  well-known  standards  for  the  kind  of  business 
in  which  he  is  engaged,  and,  it  seems  to  us,  need  not  be 
feared. 

We  feel,  then,  that  there  is  no  possible  danger  in  leaving 
natural  causes  to  determine  what  business  shall  be  done  under 
Class  I  rules.  The  absence  of  danger,  however,  does  not 
sufficiently  explain  the  affirmative  reasons  for  our  action  in 
changing  from  a  system  of  classification  by  definition  of  occu- 
pations to  a  system  of  classification  by  natural  selection.  We 
recommend  the  change,  in  the  first  place,  because  it  appears 
to  us  that  the  classification  by  definition  cannot  possibly  be 
made  accurate  and  complete.  There  are  certain  occupations 
as  to  which  it  cannot  and  ought  not  be  said  that  Class  I  of- 
fices should  do  the  whole  work.  Take,  for  example,  the  ques- 
tion of  cooks  as  dealt  with  by  the  present  Boston  rules. 
Domestic  offices  are  allowed  to  place  cooks  by  the  Class  II 
rules,  and  mercantile  offices  are  allowed  by  the  Class  I  rules 
to  place  employees  in  hotels  and  restaurants,  including,  of 
course,  the  cooks  in  such  places.  In  other  words,  cooks  in 
hotels  and  restaurant-  may  be  placed  by  both  kinds  of  ofti' 
and  this  is  right,  because  in  some  hotels  and  restaurants  the 
employment  is  practically  like  domestic  employment,  and  in 
others  it  takes  on  the  nature  of  busin<  ss  employment.    There 


40 

are  undoubtedly  other  occupations  in  which  the  employment 
is  of  such  a  nature  that  in  some  places  one  group  of  offices 
ought  to  do  the  work  and  in  other  places  it  ought  to  be  done 
by  the  other  group.  The  definition  by  occupations,  there- 
fore, in  order  to  avoid  doing  actual  mischief  would  have  to 
be  so  drawn  as  to  leave  all  reallv  doubtful  cases  to  natural 
selection  in  any  event. 

In  the  second  place,  we  recommend  the  change  under  dis- 
cussion for  the  reason  that  classification  by  definition  is  ar- 
bitrary and  inflexible.  In  the  regulation  of  any  business 
there  is  always  a  grave  danger  that  progress  and  growth  will 
be  stifled  by  artificial  rules  and  limitations.  As  far  as  pos 
sible  the  business  should  be  allowed  an  opportunity  to  de- 
velop along  natural  lines.  Let  us  suppose,  for  example,  that 
in  a  certain  branch  of  employment  into  which  mercantile  of- 
fices were  forbidden  to  enter  it  should  appear  that  there  were 
a  limited  number  of  very  desirable  positions.  These  posi- 
tions might  be  so  desirable  that  the  employers  would  not  pay 
fees  to  employment  offices  for  filling  them,  and  because  of 
this  it  might  be  wholly  unprofitable  for  offices  to  try  to  fill 
them  except  for  a  fee  at  least  equal  to  one  week's  wages. 
Employees,  on  the  other  hand,  might  be  quite  willing  to  pay 
a  week's  wages  in  order  to  secure  these  positions.  If  mer- 
cantile offices  were  not  permitted  to  enter  upon  this  branch 
of  employment  at  all  the  positions  described  could  never  be 
filled  by  any  employment  office.  The  system  would  be  work- 
ing badly.  The  flexibility  of  the  plan  suggested,  however, 
would  provide  for  just  such  a  case,  and,  in  our  opinion,  it  is 
of  great  importance  that  the  business  should  not  be  too  closely 
tied  down  by  hard  and  fast  limitations.  We  therefore  feel 
that  it  is  best  to  allow  the  business  to  be  divided  by  natural 
-•lection  between  the  two  groups  of  offices  which  we  have  thus 
far  discussed. 

There  is  only  one  other  point  to  discuss  in  connection  with 
the  rules  for  Class  II  licenses.  An  appreciable  number  of 
offices  find  it  profitable  to  conduct  under  one  management 
both  a  Class  I  office  and  a  Class  II  office.  In  order  to  accom- 
plish this  result  under  the  .present  Boston  system  it  is  nee- 


41 

essary  for  them  to  take  out  and  pay  for  two  licenses.  To 
provide  for  offices  of  this  sort  we  have  added  a  ride  permit- 
ting a  Class  II  licensee  to  elect  to  do  any  portion  of  his  busi- 
ness which  he  desires  under  the  Class  I  rules.  This  avoids 
the  useless  formality  of  taking  out  two  licenses,  without  can- 
ing any  additional  confusion  or  uncertainty,  for  each  licen 
making  such  an  election  is  required  to  post  a  statement  show- 
ing what  portions  of  his  business  he  intends  to  conduct  under 
the  Class  I  rules,  and  to  send  a  copy  of  the  statement  to  the 
licensing  authority. 

6.     Rules  for  Class  III  Licenses. 

The  result  of  including  all  employment  offices  in  the  license 
system  is  to  include  several  kinds  of  offices  which  have  never 
before  been  regulated  or  controlled  in  any  way  in  Massachu- 
setts, and  which  are  still  exempted  from  regulation  in  some 
other  States.  While  we  believe,  for  reasons  explained  above, 
that  these  offices  should  be  licensed,  we  also  believe  that  great 
care  should  be  taken  not  to  hamper  or  impede  the  conduct  of 
their  business  along  the  lines  to  which  they  have  become  ac- 
customed. 

We  deal  here  with  a  group  of  offices  which,  instead  of  deal- 
ing generally  with  various  kinds  of  employment,  specialize  in 
some  particular  branch  of  employment.  This  means  that  the 
managers  must  have  special  knowledge  and  experience  in  re- 
gard to  the  employment  with  which  the  office  deals,  and  that 
extraordinary  care  and  attention  must  be  devoted  to  investi- 
gating the  character  and  ability  of  each  individual  applicant 
and  the  nature  of  each  particular  situation,  and  the  suitabil- 
ity of  the  one  for  the  other.  The  special  nature  of  the  work 
also  makes  it  possible  to  cover  a  much  wider  field  than  can 
possibly  be  covered  by  the  general  employment  office,  and 
some  of  these  offices  located  in  Massachusetts  operate  in  all 
parts  of  the  United  States,  and,  to  Borne  extent,  in  foreign 
countries.  This  wide  range  of  activity  tends  to  further  in- 
crease the  care  with  which  the  office  must  do  its  work,  for 
employer  and  employee  in  many  cases  cannot  interview  each 
other  at  all,  and  in  many  more  cases  cannot  interview  each 


42 

other  without  considerable  expense,  which  ought  not  to  be 
incurred  unless  employment  is  a  hopeful  possibility.  The 
wide  range  of  activity  also  increases  the  expense  incurred  by 
the  office  for  advertising  and  for  correspondence  by  letters  or 
telegrams. 

It  is  obvious  that  for  offices  of  this  class  neither  the  Class  I 
rules  nor  the  Class  II  rules  are  satisfactory.  In  some  cases 
it  is  necessary  that  a  preliminary  or  registration  fee  should 
be  charged  to  cover  the  expense  and  trouble  of  investigating 
each  applicant  before  he  is  even  recommended  for  a  position, 
and  in  other  cases  it  is  necessary  and  proper  that  the  total  fee 
charged  should  exceed  the  amounts  allowed  by  the  rules  for 
the  other  groups.  It  is  also  obvious  that  no  special  set  of 
rules  can  be  drawn  for  this  group  as  a  whole,  because  it  com- 
prises different  kinds  of  employment  in  which  different  condi- 
tions prevail.  AVe  have,  therefore,  provided  no  special  rules 
for  this  class,  except  the  provision  in  section  15  that  each 
licensee  shall  file  with  the  licensing  authority  a  copy  of  the 
form  of  contract  into  which  he  proposes  to  enter  with  appli- 
cants for  employment,  and  that  the  license  may  be  withheld 
or  revoked  if  this  form  of  contract  is  unfair  or  oppressive; 
and  the  provision  of  section  16  that  the  licensee  shall  post  in 
his  office,  and  adhere  to  in  practice,  a  definite  schedule  of 
fees,  and  that  the  license  may  also  be  withheld  or  revoked  if 
the  fees  shown  by  this  schedule  are  exorbitant.  Except  for 
these  previsions  licensees  in  this  group  are  permitted  to 
charge  such  fees  and  make  such  arrangements  in  regard  to 
refunds  as  the  nature  of  their  business  will  permit. 

A>  we  have  thus  created  a  specially  privileged  group  of 
licensees  it  is  clear  that  this  class,  unlike  the  other  two  classes, 
should  be  restricted,  and  that  only  certain  sorts  of  licensees 
should  be  allowed  to  obtain  Class  III  licenses.  The  group 
must  be  restricted,  in  other  words,  to  those  licensees  who  need 
the  special  privileges,  and  to  whom  the  special  privileges  may 
be  safely  given.  It  remains  to  consider  the  terms  upon  which 
we  have  provided  that  Class  III  licenses  may  be  issued,  and 
whether  any  persons  are  likely  to  get  such  licenses  who  do  not 


43 

need  or  ought  not  to  have  the  freedom  which  such  licenses 
permit. 

The  conditions  under  which  Class  III  licenses  may  be 
granted  are  set  forth  in  section  5  of  the  bill.  In  substance 
this  section  provides  that  no  office  shall  have  a  Class  III 
license  unless  it  is  a  teachers'  agency,  a  nurses'  agency  or  a 
ministerial  agency,  or  unless  its  business  is  to  be  confined  to 
some  other  special  branch  of  employment,  and  the  licensing 
authority  is  satisfied  that  the  business  cannot  be  conducted 
properly  under  Class  I  or  Class  II  rules.  The  license  issued 
will  state  the  kind  of  employment  to  which  the  business  is  to 
be  confined,  and  the  licensee  will  be  at  liberty  to  act  only  with 
reference  to  the  kind  of  employment  so  stated.  We  are  con- 
fident that  under  these  provisions  every  office  which  is  fairly 
entitled  to  the  freedom  permitted  by  a  Class  III  license  will 
be  able  to  obtain  such  a  license,  and  also  that  no  such  license 
need  ever  be  granted  to  any  office  which  ought  not  to  have  so 
much  freedom. 

To  begin  with,  the  teachers'  agencies  will  undoubtedly  ob- 
tain Class  III  licenses,  and  we  feel  that  it  is  quite  proper 
that  they  should  have  them.  These  agencies  are  a  notable 
example  of  the  specialized  agency,  which,  because  of  the  ex- 
pert knowledge  required,  the  extraordinary  degree  of  care 
with  which  the  work  must  be  done  and  the  wide  range  of 
activity,  cannot  exist  unless  they  charge  higher  fees  than 
those  permitted  by  the  rules  for  the  other  groups,  and  cannot 
be  properly  conducted  without  charging  a  registration  fee. 
The  fee  charged  by  all  such  offices  in  Massachusetts  is  5  per 
cent  of  a  year's  salary,  which,  if  we  reckon  one  school  year 
as  furnishing  forty  weeks  of  employment,  is  equal  to  two 
weeks'  wages,  or  twice  as  much  as  the  amount  allowed  by  the 
(lass  II  rules.  This  fee  has  been  established  and  main- 
tained in  the  face  of  competition  between  independent,  com- 
peting agencies  not  only  in  this  State  but  throughout  the 
whole  country,  and  we  have  heard  no  suggestion  that  it  is  un- 
fair or  unreasonable.  Certainly  it  would  be  absurd  to  force 
these  agencies  to  operate  under  the  Class  II  rules;   and,  in 


44 

our  opinion,  it  is  absolutely  unnecessary  that  their  fees  should 
be  regulated  at  all.  It  must  be  remembered  that  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  teachers  who  are  paying  these  fees  are  young  and 
inexperienced,  and  that  by  reason  of  the  positions  so  ob- 
tained they  acquire  the  experience  and  reputation  which 
enables  them  to  get  other  positions  without  paying  fees.  The 
fees  are  paid,  in  other  words,  for  positions  which  not  only 
may  last  several  years,  but  which  also  help  so  to  establish 
the  teachers  in  their  profession  that  continued  employment 
for  the  future  comes  as  a  matter  of  course.  We  repeat, 
therefore,  that  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  amount  of  their 
fees  we  think  it  entirely  proper,  and,  in  fact,  necessary,  that 
teachers'  agencies  should  have  Class  III  licenses. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  fraudulent  and  dishonest  prac- 
tices it  makes  no  difference  whether  these  agencies  have  one 
kind  of  license  or  another,  for  the  prohibitions  against  fraud 
and  dishonesty  apply  equally  to  all  three  sorts  of  licensees. 
We  think  it  only  proper  to  add  that  we  have  not  been  able 
to  find  for  ourselves,  and  no  one  has  presented  to  us,  the 
slightest  evidence  of  any  fraud  or  dishonesty  on  the  part 
of  the  teachers'  agencies  of  this  Commonwealth.  We  have 
heard  vague  rumors  to  the  effect  that  they  have  been  charged 
with  fraudulently  dividing  fees  with  superintendents  of 
schools  to  induce  them  to  create  unnecessary  vacancies  or 
to  fill  existing  vacancies  with  inferior  teachers  from  the 
lists  of  the  offices,  in  preference  to  better  teachers  which 
might  have  been  obtained  elsewhere.  We  have  also  heard 
equally  vague  rumors  to  the  effect  that  these  agencies  will 
never  recommend  a  young  teacher,  however  capable,  for  the 
best  possible  available  position,  for  fear  that  he  may  become 
too  soon  established  in  the  profession  and  independent  of 
the  agencies,  but  try  instead  to  keep  all  teachers  as  long  as 
possible  in  low-grade  positions.  We  believe  that  these 
charges,  if  made,  are  absolutely  without  foundation  as  ap- 
plied to  any  of  the  teachers'  agencies  in  this  State.  If,  how- 
ever, t]\cv(>  should  at  any  time  be  any  truth  in  any  such 
charge  the  wrong  could  be  as  speedily  corrected  under  a 
Class  III  license  as  under  any  other  form  of  license. 

As  to  nurses'   agencies,  we  believe  that  all  the  agencies 


45 

for  trained  nurses  in  the  Commonwealth  are  honestly  con- 
ducted by  reputable  persons.  Many  of  them  find  it  neces- 
sary to  charge  registration  fees,  and  we  think  there  is  no 
question  that  this  class  of  offices  should  have  Clas-  III  li- 
ef uses  if  they  desire.  The  same  may  be  said  without  further 
comment  of  ministerial  agencies. 

We  have  added  the  general  provision  authorizing  the 
granting  of  a  Class  III  license  to  any  specialized  agency 
which  cannot  be  conducted  properly  under  the  Class  I  or 
Class  IT  rules  partly  because  we  know  of  one  such  agency 
in  the  Commonwealth  which,  in  our  opinion,  should  clearly 
have  a  Class  III  license,  and  partly  because  as  time  goes 
on  other  similar  special  agencies  may  come  into  existence. 
The  one  agency  to  which  we  refer  specializes  in  employees 
in  newspaper  establishments  and  publishing  houses.  It  is 
similar  in  character  to  the  teachers'  agencies.  The  manager 
is  a  specialist  in  newspaper  and  publishing  work.  He  pro- 
fesses to  spend  and  does  spend  great  care  in  investigating 
the  character  of  employees  and  the  advantages  of  situations 
offered,  and  the  operations  of  this  office  are  carried  on 
throughout  the  whole  country.  The  fees  charged  are  slightly 
in  excess  of  those  allowed  by  the  Class  II  rules,  but  because 
of  the  special  nature  of  the  work  we  believe  that  the  fees 
are  entirely  proper  and  reasonable,  and  that  it  would  be  a 
decided  mistake  to  hamper  the  activity  of  this  office  by  re- 
quiring it  to  reduce  its  fees.  Other  agencies  similar  to  this 
one,  and  operating  in  some  particular  branch  of  business, 
may  come  into  existence  at  any  time,  or  we  may  have  new 

%J  t 

agencies  dealing  with  some  particular  kind  of  professional 
employment,  as,  for  example,  an  agency  for  social  workers 
or  for  musicians.  The  bill  as  drawn  is  intended  to  allow 
for  the  free  growth  and  development  of  such  specialized 
agencies. 

We  have  thus  far  considered  certain  kinds  of  agencies 
which  will  undoubtedly  obtain  Class  III  Licenses,  and  which 
undoubtedly  ought  to  have  them.  Is  there  any  danger  that 
such  licenses  will  be  granted  to  any  specialized  agencies  which 
ought  not  to  have  them  \  In  m  neral  we  may  say  that  only 
very  little  harm  could  result  from  Buch  an  occurrence  in  any 


46 

event,  for  a  Class  III  office  is  subject  to  the  same  rigid  regu- 
lations as  other  offices  in  regard  to  business  methods  and 
fraudulent  practices,  even  if  its  fees  are  not  limited.  In  par- 
ticular we  may  say  that  we  know  of  no  specialized  agencies 
other  than  those  already  considered  which  are  at  all  likely  to 
ask  for  Class  III  licenses,  except  theatrical  agencies,  hotel 
agencies  and  the  agencies  supplying  foremen  and  superin- 
tendents in  textile  mills ;  and  that  so  far  as  we  can  see  no 
harm  at  all  would  result  if  any  of  these  should  get  Class  III 
licenses.  The  theatrical  agencies  in  Massachusetts  are  now 
unregulated,  and  the  usual  fee  is  only  5  per  cent  of  the  book- 
ing fee;  and  as  they  book  only  for  short  engagements  this 
amounts  to  even  less  than  the  amount  allowed  under  Class  I 
rules.  So  far  as  regulating  their  fees  is  concerned,  therefore, 
it  makes  no  difference  whether  they  take  Class  I,  Class  II  or 
Class  III  licenses,  and  the  other  regulations  will  apply  to  them 
in  any  event.  As  for  the  hotel  agencies,  there  is  grave  doubt 
whether  they  could  show  that  they  could  not  operate  under 
Class  II  rules,  for  all  of  them  now  do  business  without  charg- 
ing more  than  one  week's  wages,  and  some  of  them  charge  less. 
It  is  possible  that  some  of  them  whose  sphere  of  operations 
extends  outside  of  the  State  could  establish  the  need  of  charg- 
ing a  registration  fee.  If  they  really  need  to  do  this  why  are 
they  not  entitled  to  Class  III  licenses  ?  As  for  the  textile 
agencies,  they,  like  the  hotel  agencies,  are  already  thoroughly 
accustomed  to  Class  II  rules,  and  all  operate  for  a  fee  not  ex- 
ceeding one  week's  wages ;  and  unless  they  can  show  affirm- 
atively the  need  of  expansion  they  would  surely  be  compelled 
to  continue  as  at  present.  Furthermore,  we  strongly  doubt  if 
any  of  them  would  try  to  get  Class  III  licenses,  for  some  of 
them  are,  as  it  is,  extremely  unpopular  with  employees,  and 
an  attempt  on  the  part  of  any  one  of  them  to  get  further  lati- 
tude in  regard  to  fees  would  probably  lead  at  once  to  a  de- 
termined boycott. 

We  have  no  fear,  therefore,  that  the  provisions  which  are 
recommended  in  regard  to  Class  III  licenses  will  operate  to 
give  any  kind  of  employment  office  too  much  liberty.  We 
believe,  on  the  other  hand,  that  these  provisions  are  necessary 


47 

for  the  protection  of  certain  special  offices  which  need  more 
liberty,  and  we  have  tried  to  make  them  adequate  for  that 
purpose. 

7.  The  Licensing  Authorities  should  have  Power  to  alter  or 
add  to  the  Rules  as  to  Fees  and  Refunds  for  Class  I 
and  Class  II  Licenses. 

It  will  be  a  great  source  of  satisfaction  to  us  if  the  rules 
which  we  have  recommended  are  found  to  be  suited  in  all 
respects  to  existing  conditions;  but  it  will  not  be  surprising 
if  in  some  directions  readjustments  are  found  necessary,  for 
the  task  is  a  complicated  one,  and  the  test  of  actual  operation 
may  reveal  defects  wThich  no  amount  of  forethought  could 
have  discovered.  At  all  events  it  will  be  extremely  surpris- 
ing if  the  rules  which  we  have  recommended  remain  suited 
to  conditions  for  a  very  long  period  in  the  future,  for  con- 
ditions will  inevitably  change,  and  the  business  of  employ- 
ment offices  will  undoubtedly  grow  and  develop.  Because  of 
the  difficulty  of  adjusting  the  rules  to  existing  conditions 
with  unfailing  correctness,  and  because  of  the  practical  cer- 
tainty that  readjustments  will  be  needed  from  time  to  time 
to  meet  new  conditions,  we  feel  very  strongly  that  the 
licensing  authorities  should  have  power  to  amend  the  rules. 
Legislative  amendment  of  such  rules  is  an  unwieldy  process, 
owing  to  the  difficulty  of  making  so  large  a  body  familiar 
with  the  details  of  a  problem  such  as  this,  and  we  believe 
that  it  is  far  better  to  make  the  system  flexible  and  adjustable 
according  to  the  experience  and  knowledge  of  the  licensing 
authorities  by  giving  them  the  power  to  amend  the  rules.  To 
avoid  unnecessary  tinkering  and  ill-considered  action  we  have 
provided  that  alterations  shall  not  be  made  by  the  licensing 
authorities  of  their  own  volition  more  than  once  a  year,  and 
then  only  after  notice  to  all  licensees  and  a  hearing.  But 
at  the  same  time,  to  provide  for  the  correction  of  any  mis- 
take which  may  be  made  in  spite  of  these  precautions,  we  have 
provided  that  alterations  may  be  made  at  any  time  on  peti- 
tion of  half  the  licensees  to  be  affected  thereby.  In  the  cities 
having  a  population  of  more   than    75,000   inhabitants   we 


48 

have  given  the  power  to  amend  the  rules,  not  to  the  super- 
visor of  employment  offices  but  to  the  State  Board  of  Indus- 
trial Inspection.  It  seems  to  us  extremely  desirable  that  this 
State  department  which  appoints  the  supervisor  of  employ- 
ment offices  should  be  constantly  studying  and  observing  the 
operation  of  the  system  of  regulation,  and  we  think  that  this 
result  will  be  obtained  by  giving  it  the  power  to  amend  the 
rules. 

8.     Regulations  are  needed  as  to  the   Manner  of  granting 

Licenses. 
The  regulations  of  this  sort  which  we  have  recommended 
are  contained  in  sections  6,  7  and  9  of  the  bill.  Section  6 
requires  a  sworn  application  to  be  filed  by  every  applicant 
for  a  license,  containing  statements  similar  to  those  required 
by  the  laws  of  other  States.  Section  7  requires  an  investi- 
gation into  the  character  of  the  persons  to  be  connected  with 
the  office,  and  the  location  of  the  office ;  and  provides  that 
the  application  may  be  rejected  only  for  cause  and  only  after 
hearing,  if  the  applicant  requests  one.  Under  the  present 
Massachusetts  law  licenses  may  be  withheld  at  pleasure, 
and  in  Boston  it  has  been  the  practice  to  fix  an  arbitrary 
limit  to  the  number  of  licenses  which  will  be  granted.  We 
do  not  believe  in  this  policy.  We  see  no  reason  for  excluding 
from  this  business  any  reputable  person  who  wishes  to  enter 
it.  In  many  other  States  it  is  expressly  provided  that  li- 
censes can  be  withheld  only  for  cause,  and  nowhere  else  in 
the  country,  so  far  as  we  have  discovered,  has  the  policy 
of  limiting  the  number  of  offices  been  followed.  The  causes 
for  which  a  license  may  be  withheld  as  specified  in  section  7 
seem  to  us  sufficient.  Two  of  the  causes  which  we  have 
enumerated  are,  first,  that  some  person  to  be  connected  with 
the  office  has  previously  been  connected  with  an  office  whose 
License  has  been  revoked;  second,  that  the  office  is  to  be  lo- 
cated in  the  vicinity  of  a  saloon.  Some  of  the  other  States 
provide  that  if  these  causes  exist  licenses  must  be  withheld. 
We  believe,  of  course,  that  the  licensing  authorities  should 
have  power  to  reject  any  application  for  either  of  these 
causes,  bul   it  sei  ms  to  us  better  that  they  should  also  have 


49 

discretion  to  Issue  a  license  in  spite  of  these  causes.  8 
tion  9  provides  simply  for  the  form  and  contents  of  the 
license  to  be  issued.  Some  States  require  a  formal  applica- 
tion to  be  accompanied  by  some  kind  of  affidavits  to  the  effect 
that  the  applicant  is  of  good  moral  character.  Such  affidavits 
in  many  cases  have  very  little  weight,  and  it  seems  to  us  that 
the  investigation  provided  for  is  a  much  better  way  of  main- 
taining the  standard  of  character  among  licensees. 

9.     Licensees  in  the  Larger  Cities  should  be  required  to  give 

Bonds. 

This  is  a  very  usual  provision  in  the  laws  of  other  States. 
Our  first  impression  in  regard  to  it  was  that  the  bond  would 
be  of  little  value,  for  claims  against  employment  offices  are 
apt  to  be  so  small  that  they  are  not  worth  suing  upon  in  any 
event.  A  contested  claim  for  $2  or  $3  does  not  become  ap- 
preciably more  valuable  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  if  it  is 
established  it  may  be  collected  from  a  responsible  surety. 
Upon  inquiry  of  the  Xew  York  and  Pennsylvania  authorities, 
however,  in  regard  to  the  practical  utility  of  these  bond-. 
we  become  convinced  that  they  should  be  required.  One  of 
the  first  things  which  the  Xew  York  authorities  did  after 
the  law  requiring  bonds  went  into  effect  was%to  collect  several 
hundred  dollars  from  the  surety  of  an  employment  agent 
who  had  defrauded  a  large  gang  of  contract  laborers  to  that 
extent.  Furthermore,  both  the  Xew  York  and  Pennsylvania 
authorities  advise  us  that  the  mere  existence  of  the  bond 
makes  the  collection  of  refunds  much  easier.  Most  of  the 
offices  give  surety  company  bonds,  and  realize  that  in  order  to 
obtain  such  bonds  in  future  years  they  must  promptly  dis- 
charge their  obligations.  The  licensing  authorities,  therefore, 
by  threatening  to  notify  the  surety  company,  or  by  actually 
doing  so,  collect  promptly  the  sums  due  from  the  offices.  The 
requirement  of  a  bond  will  also  operate  indirectly  t<>  raise 
the  standard  of  character  and  responsibility  among  office 
keepers  li  surely  will  not  be  a  hardship,  for  reputable  offi 
in  New  York  readily  ohtain  surety  company  bonds  for  an 
annual  premium  of  $5,  and  there  ia  ao  reason  why  the  same 
rates  should  not  prevail  here. 


50 


10.  License  Fees  should  he  raised. 
The  present  Massachusetts  law  provides  for  an  annual 
license  fee  of  such  sum,  not  less  than  $2  as  may  be  deter- 
mined upon  by  the  licensing  authorities.  In  practice  the 
minimum  amount  is  charged  throughout  most  of  the  State. 
In  Boston  the  fee  is  $25  for  a  domestic  office  and  $50  for 
a  mercantile  office.  In  a  few  other  cities  more  than  $2  is 
charged,  but  nowhere  more  than  $10.  These  fees  are,  in 
our  opinion,  inadequate.  In  the  first  place,  the  fees  should 
be  made  large  enough  so  that  they  would  have  at  least  some 
effect  in  deterring  undesirable  persons  from  taking  out  li- 
censes. In  the  second  place,  fees  should  be  large  enough  to 
provide  a  fund  out  of  which  the  expenses  of  supervising  the 
offices  and  enforcing  the  law  may  be  paid.  In  our  opinion 
the  license  fees  in  the  larger  cities  should  be  greater  than  in 
the  smaller  cities  and  towns  because  the  offices  in  the  larger 
cities  will  do  more  business.  For  the  same  reason  we  think 
that  the  license  fees  in  Boston  should  be  larger  than  any- 
where else.  Class  II  licensees  should  pay  higher  fees  than 
Class  I  licensees,  for  the  reason  that  they  are  operating  on 
a  larger  scale  of  expenditure  throughout;  and  Class  III 
licensees  should  pay  a  still  higher  fee,  both  because  they  are 
doing  a  greater  business  and  because  they  are  obtaining 
special  privileges,  and  we  think  it  only  right  that  the  special 
privileges  should  be  made  more  costly.  In  accordance  with 
these  opinions  we  have  provided  in  section  10  that  the  li- 
cense fees  in  Boston  shall  be  $25  for  a  Class  I  license,  $50 
for  a  Class  II  license  and  $75  for  a  Class  III  license;  and 
in  other  cities  under  the  supervision  of  the  State  department 
$15  for  a  Class  I  license,  $25  for  a  Class  II  license  and  $50 
for  a  Class  III  license ;  and  elsewhere  such  sum  not  less  than 
$5  nor  more  than  $25  for  each  class  as  the  mayor  and  alder- 
men or  selectmen  may  annually  determine. 

11.     Licenses  should  remain  in  Force  for  One  Year. 
This  recommendation  is  a  continuance  of  the  present  Mas- 
sachusetts system,  and  is  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  nearly 
all  the  other  States.     Xo  comment  is  necessary  except  to  say 


51 

that  it  is  distinctly  desirable  to  have  the  doings  of  each 
licensee  thus  called  to  the  attention  of  the  licensing  authori- 
ties once  a  year.  It  seems  better  to  continue  the  present  .-; 
tern  of  having  all  licenses  expire  on  the  first  of  May  rather 
than  to  have  each  one  expire  a  year  from  the  date  of  issue,  in 
order  that  the  regular  work  of  inspection  and  enforcement 
may  not  be  continually  interrupted  by  the  work  of  renewing 
licenses. 

12.     Licenses  should  he  Revocable  only  for  Cause,  and  only 
after  a  Hearing  if  the  Licensee  Requests  One. 

At  present  licenses  may  be  revoked  at  pleasure.  This  is 
not  fair  to  licensees  or  correct  in  theory.  The  system  of  reg- 
ulation should  be  based  on  merit.  Dishonest  licensees  should 
be  punished,  but  honest  licensees  should  be  protected  against 
arbitrary  action.  If  after  a  hearing  the  licensing  authority  is 
still  of  the  opinion  that  there  is  sufficient  cause  for  revocation, 
we  do  not  believe  that  it  is  necessary  to  provide  an  appeal  to 
the  courts,  as  is  done  in  some  States,  but  we  do  regard  the 
finding  of  cause  for  revocation  and  the  hearing  as  essential. 

The  causes  for  which  licenses  may  be  revoked  are  enumer- 
ated in  section  12,  and  are,  first,  that  the  licensee  has  violated 
some  provision  of  the  act ;  second,  that  he  has  acted  dishon- 
estly in  connection  with  his  business ;  third,  that  he  has  im- 
properly attempted  to  conduct  his  business  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  cause  frequent  vacancies  in  employment  for  the  purpose 
of  increasing  the  number  of  fees  to  be  earned  by  him ;  fourth, 
that  any  other  good  and  sufficient  reason  exists  within  the 
meaning  and  purpose  of  the  act.  These  causes  are  surely 
broad  enough  to  cover  all  possible  cases  in  which  licenses 
ought  to  be  revoked,  and  it  does  not  seem  to  us  that  they  are 
too  broad. 

The  first  cause  mentioned  ought  surely  to  be  a  ground  for 
revocation.  The  penalties  for  violation  are  small,  and  some- 
times conviction  in  court  may  be  difficult,  so  that  the  threat 
of  revocation  is  the  Btrongest  of  all  weapons  with  which  to 
compel  observance  of  the  law.  If  the  violations  are  slight  or 
unintentional,  the  license  need  not  be  revoked,  for  we  have  not 


52 

provided  that  the  licensing  authority  shall  be  compelled  to 
revoke  the  license  either  for  this  or  any  other  cause.  Clearly, 
however,  as  a  means  of  enforcing  the  law  the  power  to  revoke 
should  exist  for  every  violation. 

The  second  cause  mentioned,  namely,  dishonesty,  is  neces- 
sary for  the  reason  that  there  may  be  some  forms  of  dishon- 
esty which  are  not  expressly  forbidden  by  the  law. 

The  third  cause  mentioned  is  intended  to  give  the  licensing 
authority  power  to  prevent  the  obviously  bad  practice  of  un- 
settling employment.  This  practice  is  in  a  measure  guarded 
against  by  the  prohibitions  in  section  27  against  dividing  fees 
with  employers  or  their  agents,  and  against  persuading  an 
employee  to  leave  his  employment  or  an  employer  to  dis- 
charge an  employee.  It  has  been  shown  to  us,  however,  that 
there  are  many  ways  in  which  employment  offices  can  and  to 
some  extent  do  unsettle  employment  without  actually  resort- 
ing to  the  division  of  fees,  or  the  persuasion  prohibited  by 
section  27.  They  can,  for  example,  deliberately  place  in- 
ferior employees  whom  they  know  will  not  hold  the  positions 
long,  or  continually  try  to  put  good  men  into  positions  which 
they  will  not  like  or  for  which  they  are  not  suited.  They  can 
indirectly  create  discord  between  employers  and  employees, 
and  by  various  methods  plant  in  their  minds  the  seeds  of  dis- 
satisfaction. Such  practices  are  plainly  reprehensible  and 
capable  of  doing  much  harm,  and  a  licensee  who  resorts  to 
them  ought  clearly  to  be  put  out  of  the  business.  Therefore, 
while  the  matter  is  rather  too  vague  and  indefinite  for  a  direct 
prohibition,  the  violation  of  which  would  lead  to  the  imposi- 
tion of  a  penalty,  we  feel  strongly  that  these  practices  should 
be  mentioned  as  one  ground  for  revocation. 

The  last  cause  mentioned  as  a  ground  for  revocation  of 
license  may  seem  at  first  sight  rather  broad.  It  may  be 
urged  that  to  allow  licenses  to  be  revoked  for  any  sufficient 
reason  is  practically  the  same  as  allowing  them  to  be  revoked 
at  pleasure.  It  seems  to  us,  however,  that  there  is  a  wide  dif- 
ference between  the  two  things,  both  from  the  legal  point  of 
view  and  from  the  practical  point  of  view.  As  a  matter  of 
law  we  are  inclined  to  think  that  no  purely  arbitrary  revoca- 


53 

tion  of  a  license  would  be  valid  under  this  provision,  and  as 
a  practical  matter  we  believe  that  the  licensing  authority  is 
would  not  exercise  the  power  conferred  by  this  clause  unless 
some  really  good  reason  actually  existed.  The  clause  is  con- 
tained in  the  laws  of  several  other  States,  and  we  regard  it 
as  important  to  cover  cases  which  may  possibly  arise  in  which 
licensees  have  shown  themselves  clearly  unfit  to  be  in  the 
business,  and  yet  have  done  nothing  which  falls  within  any 
of  the  other  grounds  for  revocation. 

13.     Changes  of  Officers  or  Managers  and  Changes  in  Loca- 
tion should  he  forbidden  unless  approved. 

The  transfer  of  licenses  is,  of  course,  absolutely  prohibited, 
for  the  license  is  granted  only  after  an  investigation  of  the  in- 
dividual character  of  the  licensee.  This  investigation  would 
amount  to  nothing  if  the  licensee  were  at  liberty  to  sell  out 
to  a  scoundrel.  The  character  of  the  officers  of  an  incorpo- 
rated licensee  and  the  managers  of  all  offices  is  really  just  as 
important  as  the  character  of  the  licensees.  Accordingly 
these  persons  are  to  be  named  in  the  application  and  investi- 
gated and  approved  before  a  license  is  granted  (sections  6 
and  7).  These  provisions  would  also  be  nullified  if  new  of- 
ficers and  new  managers  could  become  connected  with  an  of- 
fice at  any  time.  It  is  essential,  therefore,  that  no  such 
change  in  the  office  management  should  be  made  unless  ap- 
proved by  the  licensing  authority.  As  the  location  of  the 
office  is  a  matter  of  importance  which  is  investigated  and  ap- 
proved before  the  license  is  granted,  it  follows  that  no  change 
in  this  respect  should  be  allowed  unless  also  approved.  These 
provisions  are  contained  in  sections  13  and  14.  Section  1  \ 
also  contains  a  provision  that  every  licensee  who  continues  to 
do  business  shall  maintain  an  office.  It  would  be  very  hard 
for  the  licensing  authorities  to  follow  up  and  inspect  a  licensee 
who,  after  obtaining  his  license,  should  close  his  office  and  do 
his  work  on  street  corners  or  elsewhere,  It  seems  to  us  ex- 
tremely important  that  every  Licensee  should  maintain  and 
keep  open  an  office  at  which  his  book-  and  records  should  be 
kept  open  to  inspection. 


54 


1J{.     Regulations  of  Business  Methods. 

Section  16  and  sections  19  to  25  inclusive  contain  a  num- 
ber of  business  regulations  which  we  have  decided  to  recom- 
mend after  studying  the  laws  of  other  States  and  observing 
the  methods  of  well-conducted  offices  in  this  State.  A  com- 
plete explanation  of  these  provisions  in  detail  would  occupy 
so  much  space  that  it  seems  better  to  mention  here  only 
the  general  nature  of  the  sections  referred  to,  and  beyond 
that  to  allow  them  to  speak  for  themselves. 

Section  16  requires  all  licensees  to  post  a  schedule  of  the 
fees  charged  by  them.  This  is  needed  so  that  persons  dealing 
with  the  offices  may  see  at  a  glance  what  the  fees  are.  In 
the  case  of  an  office  which  takes  less  than  the  maximum  fees 
allowed,  or  a  Class  III  office  whose  fees  are  not  limited,  the 
schedule  is  also  needed  to  insure  a  uniform  scale  of  charges. 

Section  19  requires  receipts  to  be  given  for  all  fees,  with 
the  rules  as  to  refund  printed  on  the  back.  Several  other 
States  have  this  same  provision,  and  it  seems  obviously  good. 

Section  20  requires  a  card  to  be  given  to  every  employee 
sent  to  apply  for  employment.  These  cards  will  prevent  much 
confusion  and  misunderstanding  which  might  arise  if  merely 
verbal  directions  were  given.  If  the  employment  to  be  ap- 
plied for  is  outside  of  the  city  or  town  in  which  the  office  is 
located,  the  cards  are  required  to  describe  fully  the  employ- 
ment supposed  to  be  obtainable,  so  that  if  the  office  improp- 
erly puts  the  applicant  to  useless  expense  in  going  to  such 
place  the  applicant  may  recover  the  cost  of  transportation. 

Section  21  requires  the  office  which  acts  as  a  booking  agent 
—  that  is  to  say,  the  office  which  actually  hires  employees  for 
employers  —  to  give  each  employee  a  written  memorandum 
of  the  terms  of  his  engagement.  This  is  plainly  a  necessary 
provision  and  will  tend  to  decrease  such  evils  as  exist  in  the 
padrone  or  contract-labor  system. 

Section  22  requires  the  license  and  copies  of  the  law  and 
the  rules  to  be  posted  in  all  offices.  This  needs  no  explana- 
tion. 

Section  23  requires  licensees  to  keep  proper  records  of  all 
their  transactions,  and  that  the  records  shall  be  open  to  in- 


55 

spection.     This  is  extremely  important,  both  for  the  pilrp 
of  aiding  the  authorities  in  investigating  any  particular  com- 
plaint and  of  enabling  them  to  exercise  a  general  supervision 
over  the  business  of  the  offices. 

Sections  24  and  25  need  no  explanation. 

15.     Investigation  of  Beferences. 

We  believe  that  much  more  emphasis  should  be  placed  on 
references  from  previous  employers  in  regard  to  the  character 
and  ability  of  employees.  The  present  law  contains  no  pro- 
visions on  this  subject.  The  offices  are  not  required  to  obtain 
the  names  of  previous  employers,  or  communicate  with  them 
in  any  way  if  their  names  are  given,  or  to  disclose  their  names 
or  the  nature  of  any  information  furnished  by  them  to  pro- 
spective employers.  Sometimes  these  things  are  done  and 
sometimes  they  are  not,  and  to  the  shame  of  the  employers  it 
must  be  said  that  such  investigation  is  at  present  rendered  of 
doubtful  value  by  the  lamentable  lack  of  conscientious  co- 
operation on  their  part.  They  are  for  the  most  part  too  timid 
or  too  soft-hearted  or  too  indifferent  to  say  anything  to  the 
discredit  of  a  former  employee  except  in  the  most  flagrant 
cases,  and  to  avoid  doing  so  will  often  neglect  to  answer  com- 
munications, or,  if  they  do  reply,  will  make  some  vague  and 
indefinite  statement  which  is  either  valueless  or  actually  mis- 
leading. Many  reliable  office  keepers  in  discussing  the  inves- 
tigation of  references  have  told  us  that  it  amounts  to  little 
because  employers  will  not  tell  the  truth  about  former  em- 
ployees if  it  happens  to  be  disagreeable.  One  employment 
agent  who  has  had  a  large  experience  in  such  matters  re- 
marked that  a  reference  from  an  English  employer  was  al- 
ways of  great  value  in  considering  the  fitness  of  an  employ 
but  that  a  reference  from  an  American  employer  was  not 
worth  the  paper  on  which  it  was  written.  Thia  seems  to  us 
all  wrong.  Xo  one  wants  a  careless,  inefficient  or  dishonest 
employee  to  obtain  a  position  in  preference  to  one  who  [a 
careful,  efficient  and  honest,  but  in  the  absence  of  a  willing 
and  conscientious  expression  of  opinion  by  former  employ< 
one  stands  much  the  same  chance  as  the  other.     The  present 


56 

condition  of  affairs  not  only  makes  it  unnecessarily  difficult 
for  the  individual  employer  to  distinguish  between  a  good 
servant  and  a  poor  one,  but  also  lowers  the  standard  of  effi- 
ciency among  employees  as  a  whole. 

It  is  perhaps  impossible  to  say  whether  the  unsatisfactory 
attitude  of  employers  in  this  respect  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
we  have  fallen  out  of  the  habit  of  paying  much  attention  to 
references  or  whether  we  have  ceased  to  regard  references 
because  we  have  found  them  unreliable.  It  is  rather  more 
pleasant  to  believe  that  the  former  is  the  true  explanation, 
and  there  seems  to  be  much  reason  for  the  hope  that  if  em- 
ployment offices  are  required  to  place  more  emphasis  on  refer- 
ences from  former  employers  the  character  of  such  references 
will  improve,  and  a  much  better  condition  of  affairs  may  be 
brought  about. 

Accordingly  we  have  inserted  in  section  26  such  provisions 
as  seem  to  us  practicable  on  this  point.  It  is  impossible  to 
require  the  offices  to  obtain  the  names  of  references  in  all 
cases,  for  some  employees  who  come  from  a  distance  or  are 
just  entering  employment  are  unable  to  give  them.  It  is 
likewise  impossible  to  require  all  offices  to  investigate  such 
references  as  are  given  for  some  offices  do  business  on  such  a 
scale  as  to  prohibit  the  trouble  and  expense  which  this  would 
involve.  It  seems  perfectly  feasible,  however,  to  make  all 
offices  demand  the  names  of  at  least  two  references  from  each 
applicant  for  employment,  and  to  record  the  names  if  given, 
or  the  fact  that  no  names  are  given  if  such  is  the  fact,  and  to 
communicate  the  names  given,  or  the  absence  of  names,  to 
every  prospective  employer.  These  provisions  in  connection 
with  the  further  provision  that  written  communications  re- 
ceived from  former  employers  shall  be  kept  on  file  and  sub- 
mitted to  prospective  employers  on  request  are  all  that  we 
have  recommended. 

16.     Prohibitions  of  Dishonesty  and  Immorality. 

Without  reference  to  the  extent  to  which  any  particular 
fraudulent  or  immoral  practice  is  now  indulged  in  by  em- 
ployment offices  it  is  plain  enough  that  a  law  of  this  sort 


57 

should  contain  a  direct  prohibition  of  all  such  practices  as 
are  at  all  likely  to  occur,  and  are  not  punishable  by  existing 
law.  Section  27  is  intended  to  cover  this  ground,  and  it 
seems  clear  without  further  explanation  that  everything  pro- 
hibited by  that  section  ought  to  be  prohibited.  If  other  sim- 
ilar prohibitions  are  necessary  they  have  not  been  called  to 
our  minds  either  by  the  study  of  the  laws  of  other  States  or  by 
the  investigation  of  conditions  in  this  State.  The  only  thing 
omitted  which  might  have  been  included  is  a  prohibition  of 
what  is  known  as  the  white  slave  traffic.  This  is  omitted  for 
the  reason  that  it  is  already  sufficiently  prohibited  by  Revised 
Laws,  chapter  212,  section  8,  as  amended  by  section  3  of 
chapter  424  of  the  Acts  of  1910. 

17.     Special  Regulations  for  Theatrical  Agencies. 

Four  distinct  suggestions  have  been  made  to  us  in  regard 
to  special  regulations  for  theatrical  agencies. 

The  first  suggestion  is  based  on  the  charge  that  many  of 
these  agencies  arrange  contracts  between  vaudeville  artists 
and  irresponsible  or  fraudulent  managers,  who  pay  the  artists 
either  less  than  the  amount  agreed  upon  or  nothing  at  all. 
We  have  found  evidence  which  satisfies  us  that  this  sort  of 
thing  sometimes  occurs,  though  we  cannot  say  to  what  extent 
it  occurs.  The  inference  is  also  very  strong  that  when  it 
does  occur  the  booking  agency  is  often  to  blame.  As  the  en- 
gagements secured  are  for  the  most  part  in  small  vaudeville 
theatres  scattered  throughout  Xew  England,  and  as  the  man- 
agers leave  all  arrangements  to  the  booking  agents,  the  artists 
have  no  opportunity  to  judge  for  themselves  as  to  the  respon- 
sibility of  their  employers  either  from  personal  interviews, 
inquiries  or  general  reputation,  and  are  forced  to  rely  upon 
the  agents.  The  agents,  on  the  other  hand,  ought  to  know 
whether  the  managers  for  whom  they  are  acting  are  respon- 
sible, and  it  would  seem  that  if  they  were  frank  and  hoE 
with  the  artists  most  if  not  all  of  the  trouble  complained  of 
might  be  eliminated.  The  suggestion  is  that  a  law  similar 
to  that  in  force  in  New  York  be  adopted,  requiring  these 
agencies  to  keep  on  file  and  exhibit  to  all  applicants  for  em- 


58 

ployment  a  statement,  signed  and  sworn  to  by  the  agents, 
setting  forth  the  facts  as  known  to  them  in  regard  to  the  re- 
sponsibility and  standing  of  each  manager  for  whom  they 
secure  artists.  We  are  inclined  to  think  that  this  provision 
could  be  too  easily  evaded  to  be  of  great  value,  and  that  the 
other  provisions  of  the  law  which  are  recommended  will  be 
sufficient  to  stamp  out  the  abuse  complained  of  without  this 
special  provision.  If  our  recommendations  are  adopted  these 
agencies  will  hereafter  be  licensed  and  subjected  to  regular 
inspection,  and  any  misrepresentation  in  regard  to  the  man- 
agers or  even  the  withholding  of  any  material  facts  known 
to  the  aa'ent  will  be  ground  for  revocation  of  license.  It 
seems  to  us  that  these  provisions,  without  more,  should  be 
sufficient  to  control  agents  who  are  inclined  to  play  fast  and 
loose  with  artists  in  this  respect,  and  that  the  New  York  law 
would  add  little  if  anything.  If  the  Legislature  shall  be  of 
a  different  opinion,  or  if,  as  time  goes  on.  the  licensing  au- 
thorities shall  find  that  they  cannot  cope  with  this  problem, 
it  will  be  a  simple  matter  to  add  to  the  bill  a  section  based 
on  the  Xew  York  law. 

The  second  suggestion  made  to  us  in  regard  to  theatrical 
agencies  is  that  the  contracts  of  employment  arranged  by 
these  agencies  for  artists  are  unjust  and  oppressive,  and  that 
all  such  contracts  should  be  required,  as  in  Xew  York,  to  con- 
tain certain  specified  statements  descriptive  of  the  employ- 
ment and  the  expenses  of  transportation,  and  to  follow  in 
other  respects  a  form  previously  submitted  to  and  approved 
by  the  licensing  authorities.  The  feature  of  such  contracts 
most  objected  to  is  a  provision  inserted  by  some  but  not  all 
agencies  that  the  manager  may  terminate  the  contract  "  if  the 
act  is  not  satisfactory."  As  the  agents  have  no  object  in  in- 
serting this  or  such  other  provisions  as  the  artists  dislike  ex- 
cept so  far  as  they  are  demanded  by  managers,  the  questions 
1  are  questions  as  to  the  terms  of  employment  between 
employers  and  employees.  We  do  not  feel  that  a  system  for 
the  regulation  of  employment  offices  should  be  made  use  of  to 
dictate  terms  of  employment  to  either  employers  or  employ- 
and  we  have  Therefore  not  adopted  this  suggestion.     Such 


59 

matters  must  be  adjusted  by  the  employers  and  employees 

themselves.  In  point  of  fact,  associations  of  actor-  are  at 
the  present  time  concerning  themselves  with  the  very  point 
under  discussion,  and  have  placed  the  stamp  of  their  approval 
on  the  contracts  of  some  agencies  and  withheld  it  from  those 
of  others.  It  seems  to  us  that  this  is  the  proper  cure  for 
injustice  of  the  sort  complained  of,  and  a  cure  which  should 
be  successful  if  any  real  injustice  exists. 

The  third  suggestion  in  regard  to  theatrical  agencies  is 
that  their  fees  for  services  should  be  regulated.  We  have 
already  pointed  out  that  the  usual  fee  charged  by  these  agen- 
cies is  now  only  5  per  cent  or  one-twentieth  of  the  book- 
ing fee,  and  that,  as  the  engagements  are  always  short,  this 
amounts  to  even  less  than  the  fees  permitted  by  the  rules  for 
Class  I.  We  cannot  believe  that  these  fees  are  unreasonably 
high,  and  in  the  bill  introduced  by  the  actors  themselves  no 
reduction  was  required.  As  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  these  agencies  will  charge  more  under  a  system  of  regu- 
lation than  the  reasonable  fees  which  they  now  charge  with- 
out any  regulation,  it  seems  clear,  at  first  sight,  that  there  is 
no  need  to  specially  limit  their  fees.  We  have  been  in- 
formed, however,  that  while  the  usual  scale  of  charges  is  fair 
enough  some  agencies  will  often  charge  an  extra  or  even  dou- 
ble fee  on  some  pretext  or  other,  the  usual  pretext  being  that 
the  position  secured  had  to  be  obtained  from  another  agent 
and  that  he  had  to  be  paid.  We  have  not  had  time  to  verify 
this  information,  but  even  if  it  is  true  it  requires  no  special 
regulation.  These  offices  are  to  be  required,  like  all  others, 
to  post  and  adhere  to  a  uniform  schedule  of  fees.  This  will 
force  them  to  post  the  usual  charge  of  5  per  cent,  and  will 
prevent  them  from  charging  any  more  in  any  case  on  any 
pretext.  If  they  do  get  a  position  for  an  applicant  through 
another  agent  they  can  pay  the  other  agent  as  much  or  as 
little  as  they  choose,  but  the  charge  to  the  applicant  for  net- 
ting him  the  position  will  remain  the  same,  no  matter  how 
it  is  done. 

The  fourth  suggestion  made  to  us  in  regard  to  theatrical 
agencies  has  been  embodied  in  section  29.      Whatever  may  be 


60 

thought  upon  the  general  question  of  allowing  young  persons 
to  be  employed  upon  the  stage,  all  must  agree  that  it  is  an 
exceedingly  dangerous  thing  to  allow  a  girl  under  eighteen 
to  decide  for  herself  to  go  into  vaudeville,  to  obtain  an  en- 
gagement through  a  booking  office,  and  to  start  off  to  some 
strange  place  to  begin  a  public  career,  unaccompanied  by 
parent,  guardian  or  friend.  The  danger  is  equally  great  for 
young  boys.  We  have  found  that  this  sort  of  thing  takes 
place  to  some  extent  with  disastrous  results,  and  it  seems  to 
us  exceedingly  important  to  provide  that  no  theatrical  agency 
shall  book  a  boy  or  girl  under  eighteen  without  the  consent 
of  parent  or  guardian. 

18.     Provisions  for  the  Benefit  of  Employment  Offices. 

Office  keepers  who  do  not  collect  their  fees  until  after  em- 
ployment has  begun  all  tell  us  that  the  process  of  collection 
thereafter  involves  a  £Ood  deal  of  time  and  trouble  and  some 
expense,  and  that  an  appreciable  amount  proves  uncollectible. 
Of  course  this  either  directly  reduces  the  efficiency  of  the 
office,  or  directly  increases  the  scale  of  fees  which  it  must 
charge  in  order  to  exist.  A  few  office  keepers  have  suggested 
to  us  that  conditions  in  this  respect  might  be  improved  by  a 
modification  of  the  rule  of  law  prohibiting  a  valid  assign- 
ment of  future  earnings  under  a  contract  not  yet  entered  into. 
There  appears  to  be  nothing  like  a  general  demand  among 
office  keepers  for  such  a  modification,  but,  on  the  whole,  the 
suggestion  strikes  us  favorably.  It  appears  that  by  chapter 
390  of  the  Acts  of  1906,  which  is  now  found  in  chapter  514 
of  the  Acts  of  the  year  1909,  sections  121  to  126,  inclusive,, 
the  Legislature  has  already  modified  the  general  rule  to  the 
extent  of  making  valid  an  assignment  of  wages  for  a  period 
of  two  years,  given  in  return  for  money  or  goods  furnished 
by  the  assignee,  both  as  to  existing  contracts  of  employment 
and  as  to  contracts  not  yet  entered  into.  If  assignments  for 
money  and  goods  are  to  be  valid  for  two  years,  it  seems  to  us 
thai  an  assignment  to  pay  an  employment  office  fee  ought  to 
be  valid,  for  that  alone,  of  all  liabilities  which  may  be  in- 
curred by  the  man  out  of  employment,  tends  to  get  him  out 


61 

of  the  hole  instead  of  getting  him  deeper  in  the  hole,  and  it 
will  always  be  a  small  amount  paid  off  out  of  the  first  waj 

earned.  We  have  accordingly  inserted  a  provision  covering 
this  point  in  section  29  of  the  bill.  As  the  assignments  made 
will  be  for  small  amounts  and  quickly  paid  off,  it  seems  un- 
necessary to  have  the  somewhat  complicated  provisions  as  to 
assignments  in  general  apply  in  this  case,  and  we  have  simply 
provided  that  the  assignment  shall  be  served  upon  the  em- 
ployer. 

The  provisions  of  section  30  are  intended  to  prohibit  two 
kinds  of  fraud  which  the  keepers  of  employment  offices  tell 
us  are  occasionally  practiced  upon  them.  A  perusal  of  the 
section  will  indicate  what  kinds  of  fraud  are  referred  to.  If 
these  things  are  done  they  ought  not  to  be,  and  it  seems  to  us 
entirely  proper  that  they  should  be  prohibited. 

19.     Penalties. 

Xo  extended  discussion  appears  to  be  necessary  of  the  pen- 
alties provided  for  by  section  31.  It  appears  to  us  proper 
that  the  severest  penalty  should  be  provided  for  acting  as  an 
employment  agent  without  a  license,  for  this  will  naturally  be 
the  most  difficult  of  all  offences  to  detect.  Once  an  employ- 
ment agent  has  brought  himself  under  the  license  system  he 
is  known  to  the  authorities  and  his  doings  may  be  observed. 
If,  however,  he  acts  as  an  employment  agent  without  a  license 
he  is  not  known  to  the  authorities,  unless  they  happen  to  find 
out  about  him.  We  feel,  therefore,  that  the  penalty  for  act- 
ing without  a  license  should  be  made  severe  enough  to  make 
sure  that  all  employment  agents  will  bring  themselves  within 
the  system  of  inspection  and  regulation.  We  have  accord- 
ingly provided  that  this  offence  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine 
of  not  more  than  $200.  For  all  other  offences  we  have  pro- 
vided a  fine  not  to  exceed  $50  for  each  offence.  This  seems 
to  n-  adequate,  for  no  single  specific  violation  of  the  law  will 
be  of  much  consequence  to  the  community;  and  after  all  the 
power  to  revoke  the  license  will  he  more  effective  as  a  means 
of  enforcing  the  law  than  criminal  prosecution.  It  may 
seem,  in  fact,  that  for  some  of  the  things  prohibited  by  the 


62 

act  revocation  of  the  license  should  be  the  only  penalty.  On 
this  point  we  feel  that,  apart  from  all  other  considerations, 
the  power  of  revocation  will  be  greatly  strengthened  if  the 
licensing  authority  is  able  to  bring  an  offending  licensee  be- 
fore the  court  for  every  violation  of  the  law.  There  may  be 
doubtful  or  disputed  cases  of  violation,  in  which  the  licensing 
authority  cannot  act  according  to  his  convictions  without  sub- 
jecting himself  to  criticism,  and  losing,  to  some  extent,  the 
confidence  of  licensees.  If  he  can  in  such  cases  first  secure 
a  conviction  in  court  and  base  his  action  on  that  his  position 
will  be  unassailable.  We  feel  quite  confident,  therefore,  that 
every  violation  of  the  law  should  be  punishable  by  fine. 

20.     Inspection. 

There  are  persons  who  believe  that  the  laws  relating  to 
employment  offices,  like  all  laws  in  general,  will  be  more  sat- 
isfactorily enforced  if  they  are  left  in  the  hands  of  the  ordi- 
nary police  authorities.  Such  persons  argue  that  as  it  is  the 
business  of  the  police  to  enforce  all  laws,  no  one  can  know  as 
much  as  they  about  the  best  methods  of  enforcement ;  that  the 
system  of  local  responsibility  by  which  the  chief  is  respon- 
sible for  the  city,  the  captain  for  his  district  and  the  patrol- 
man for  his  beat,  leads  inevitably  to  the  best  possible  results, 
both  because  of  the  pride  which  each  man  takes  in  his  partic- 
ular domain,  and  of  the  peculiarly  intimate  knowledge  which 
each  absorbs  from  day  to  day  of  conditions  and  circumstances 
of  all  kinds  within  his  territory.  These  arguments  are  un- 
questionably sound  as  applied  to  the  general  problem  of  pre- 
serving law  and  order  in  our  communities,  and  indicate  clearly 
the  lines  along  which  our  police  departments  should  be  ad- 
ministered ;  but  we  cannot  agree  that  they  apply  to  the  sub- 
ject-matter which  we  have  under  consideration. 

It  requires  no  extended  study  of  the  laws  of  the  Common- 
wealth to  see  that  there  are  many  kinds  of  laws  for  the  en- 
forcement of  which  ordinary  police  methods  are  considered 
inadequate,  and  a  system  of  regular  inspection  by  trained  in- 
spectors is  provided.  For  a  number  of  reasons  we  believe  the 
Bame  policy  of  inspection  should  be  adopted  as  to  the  laws 


63 

concerning  employment  offices.  In  the  first  place,  these  law- 
are  so  complicated  that  the  ordinary  police  authorities  can 
hardly  be  expected  to  be  sufficiently  familiar  with  all  their 
provisions.  In  the  second  place,  the  proper  enforcement  of 
those  laws  requires  not  only  a  thorough  understanding  of  the 
laws  themselves,  but  also  a  thorough  understanding  of  the  em- 
ployment office  business.  It  would  be  absurd  to  prosecute  for 
every  petty  violation  of  the  laws,  but  all  violations  should  be 
investigated,  and  discretion  should  be  exercised  as  to  whether 
prosecution  is  to  follow.  The  proper  exercise  of  this  discre- 
tion requires  a  much  more  expert  knowledge  of  the  business 
than  police  authorities  can  be  expected  to  have.  In  the  third 
place,  in  many  cases  in  which  violations  are  due  to  ignorance 
or  misunderstanding  the  proper  method  of  enforcement  would 
be  to  advise  and  correct  the  licensee  in  regard  to  his  business 
methods.  Office  keepers  ought  to  be  quite  willing  to  be  ad- 
vised and  corrected  by  an  expert  inspector,  who  speaks  as  the 
representative  of  the  licensing  authority,  but  would  quite  nat- 
urally object  to  being  told  how  to  carry  on  their  business  by  a 
policeman  in  uniform.  In  the  fourth  place,  the  nature  of 
the  law  in  question  is  such  that  persons  affected  by  violations 
will  not  complain  to  the  police.  They  are  themselves  in  most 
cases  a  little  uncertain  as  to  the  right  and  wrong  of  the  mat- 
ter involved,  and  if  they  are  to  complain  they  want  to  go  to 
some  one  who  can  advise  them,  and  assume  the  responsibility 
of  acting  in  the  matter.  They  know  perfectly  well  that  a 
policeman  will  know  even  less  about  it  than  they  do,  and  that 
unless  they  themselves  are  sure  of  their  ground  and  ready  to 
force  the  matter  to  an  issue  nothing  will  be  done.  Inve-ti- 
gation  has  shown  clearly  that  under  the  present  system 
in  Boston  only  a  small  portion  of  the  cases  in  which  em- 
ployers or  employees  feel  themselves  aggrieved  are  brought  to 
the  attention  of  the  police.  If  there  were  regular  inspector- 
constantly  inspecting  the  offices,  and  known  t<>  have  expert 
knowledge  on  the  subject,  many  more  complaints  would  un- 
doubtedly be  made  to  them.  Lastly,  regular  inspection  i& 
needed  for  the  purple  of  collecting  and  reporting  to  the 
licensing  authorities  at  regular  intervals  all   possible  in  for- 


64 

mation  in  regard  to  licensees.  We  are  dealing  with  a  com- 
plicated system  of  regulation  as  applied  to  an  important 
business.  The  authorities  in  charge  of  that  system  cannot 
know  too  much  about  the  manner  in  which  the  business  is  be- 
ing conducted,  the  character  of  the  persons  engaged  in  it, 
the  methods  employed  and  the  conditions  under  which  it  is 
carried  on.  To  get  anything  like  the  best  possible  results  out 
of  such  a  system,  and  to  have  any  hope  of  improvement  as 
time  goes  on,  it  is  absolutely  essential  that  the  licensing  au- 
thorities should  be  at  all  times  informed  as  fully  as  possible 
in  regard  to  the  operation  of  the  system.  Under  present  con- 
ditions in  Boston  the  licensing  authorities  may  issue  a  license 
and  never  know  the  first  thing  about  the  doings  of  the  licensee 
thereunder  until  a  year  later,  when  he  applies  for  a  new 
license,  and  yet  the  licensee  may  have  been  constantly  con- 
ducting his  business  in  an  illegal  manner. 

For  all  these  reasons  we  are  firmly  convinced  that  the 
proper  regulation  of  employment  offices  absolutely  requires  a 
system  of  regular  inspection  by  trained  inspectors  having  no 
other  business,  who  shall  not  only  deal  with  such  complaints 
as  are  made  in  regard  to  the  offices,  but  shall  also  inspect  all 
offices  at  frequent  intervals  and  report  the  results  of  all  inves- 
tigations to  the  licensing  authorities.  We  have  provided  for 
such  inspection  in  section  33.  Without  such  a  system  of  in- 
spection we  feel  that  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  pass  a  new 
law  at  all,  but  with  it  we  believe  that  the  new  law  will  be  a 
great  benefit  to  the  community. 

III.     STATE  FREE  EMPLOYMENT   OFFICES. 

The  governmental  labor  bureau  plays  historically  an  im- 
portant part  in  the  public  regulation  of  private  employment 
agencies.  Moreover,  the  labor  exchange  maintained  by  the 
iiovernment  is  to-day  so  large  a  factor  in  the  plan  for  a  better 
distribution  of  labor  in  Great  Britain  and  Germany  that  the 
commission  regrets  it  has  been  possible  to  give  so  little  time 
to  this  division  of  the  subject. 

From  the  diverse  views  presented  to  the  commission  it 
won]*!  seem  that  our  citizens  have  little  actual  knowledge  of 


65 

the  work  of  the  three  free  employment  bureaus  maintained  by 
this  Commonwealth.  Those  persons  who  are  skeptical  of  the 
possibility  of  efficient  work  being  done  by  a  government  office 
criticized  the  expense  of  maintenance.  Those  who  are  skep- 
tical of  employers  with  good  positions  going  to  a  State  free 
office  criticized  sending  employees  to  a  charity  place  for  poor 
jobs.  And  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  strongest  advocates 
of  the  State  free  employment  offices,  who  recommended  sev- 
eral branches  for  the  Boston  office  and  the  creation  of  many 
more  offices  in  the  State,  were  unable  to  recall  having  known 
an  employer  who  found  a  worker  or  a  person  who  obtained  a 
position  at  any  one  of  the  present  three  State  offices.  Those 
advocates  believed,  as  did  some  of  the  representatives  of  or- 
ganized labor,  that  it  is  a  proper  function  of  government  to 
assist  in  finding  work  for  those  out  of  employment. 

The  commission,  while  deeply  interested  in  the  large  ques- 
tion of  unemployment,  believed  it  could  recommend  an  exten- 
sion of  the  system  of  free  employment  offices  in  Massachusetts 
only  on  the  basis  of  knowledge  of  their  present  or  potential 
efficiency.  The  reports  and  published  speeches  of  the  super- 
intendent of  the  Boston  office  were  carefully  studied ;  the  of- 
fices were  visited  by  the  investigators  and  members  of  the 
commission,  a  fairly  large  number  of  employers  were  inter- 
viewed, and  also  25  social  agencies  in  a  position  to  co-operate 
with  the  Boston  office  or  to  know  its  work.  The  statistics  of 
the  State  offices  make  no  distinction  between  temporary  and 
permanent  employment,  as  is  done  in  the  high-grade  private 
mercantile  employment  offices  in  Boston ;  neither  do  they 
show  the  nature  of  employment  or  scale  of  wages.  Yet  any 
assessment  of  the  social  value  of  the  office  must  be  based  on  a 
knowledge  of  these  facts.  While  the  job  of  a  day  and  that 
of  years  counts  as  one  in  the  reports,  it  is  idle  to  attempt  to 
compute  the  amount  of  fees  saved  to  workers  obtaining  the 
positions. 

Through  the  courtesy  of  Mr.  Gettemy,  Director  of  the  Bu- 
reau of  Statistics,  the  commission  was  furnished  with  a  list 
of  500  employees  for  whom  positions  were  secured  in  the 
month  of  October,  and  the  name  of  the  employer.     Our  in- 


66 

vestigators,  in  January,  in  painstaking  manner  made  inquiry 
of  all  these  employers  to  learn  how  many  of  these  employees 
were  actually  in  the  same  employment  three  months  after  en- 
gagement, or  the  length  of  service  if  less  than  three  months, 
and  the  wage  paid.  In  order  to  ascertain  to  what  extent  the 
State  free  employment  offices  are  useful  to  farmers  in  obtain- 
ing help,  a  schedule  of  questions  was  distributed  among  the 
members  of  agricultural  organizations  in  various  towns  of 
the  State. 

As  any  study  of  Massachusetts  offices  separated  from  the 
study  of  offices  maintained  by  the  public  treasury  in  other 
States  would  be  manifestly  unfair,  the  commission  has  tried, 
through  correspondence,  consultation  and  literature,  to  in- 
form itself  in  some  small  degree  of  the  results  attained  by 
similar  offices  in  this  country  and  elsewhere.  To  learn  just 
what  groups  of  workers  these  offices  have  benefited,  and  what 
further  service  to  the  community  they  may  render,  has  been 
the  object  of  this  study. 

Why  Free  Offices  were  established. 
The  first  offices  to  be  maintained  by  the  State  were  the  5 
opened  in  Ohio  in  1890.  Between  1890  and  1905,  32  other 
offices  were  opened  in  1 8  States ;  the  1  in  New  York  City 
was  both  opened  and  closed.  In  1906  and  1907  the  3  Mas- 
sachusetts offices  were  opened.  The  State  free  employment 
office  movement  appears  to  have  spread  in  response  to  four 
quite  different  types  of  demand.  An  understanding  of  the 
origin  of  the  offices  is  necessary  to  estimate  fairly  the  results. 

1.  The  Ohio  offices  and  the  larger  proportion  of  the  others 
wore  established  to  compete  with  private  offices,  run  for 
profit,  in  the  belief  that  a  model  office  run  by  the  government 
would  automatically  regulate  and  correct  the  existing  abuses 
in  the  private  offices. 

2.  Some  offices  were  opened  to  meet  the  local  demand  of  a 
city  that  felt  itself  the  equal  in  importance  and  local  pride  of 
a  city  already  possessing  an  office. 

3.  Occasionally  the  agitation  for  an  office  came  from  per- 


67 

sons  interested  in  the  opportunities  for  superintendence  of 
the  same. 

4.  A  belief  that  a  free  employment  offiee  was  a  proper 
function  of  government  and  of  real  social  value  to  the  com- 
munity. 

Experience  demonstrates  clearly  that  abuses  in  the  pri- 
vate offices  can  be  corrected  only  by  a  law  licensing  and  regu- 
lating them,  followed  by  inspection  and  enforcement.  Long 
after  the  experience  of  the  earlier  offices  showed  this,  how- 
ever, State  after  State  opened  a  competing  office  to  do  just 
this  thing.  In  West  Virginia,  an  office  at  Wheeling  did  suc- 
ceed in  driving  private  offices  out  of  business,  but  condi- 
tions of  labor  there  are  exceptional.1  It  is  unfortunate  that 
the  State  office  has  been  so  long  connected  with  the  attempt 
to  perform  an  indirect  function  rather  than  a  direct  one.  A 
deterrent  program  is  never  so  inspiring  as  a  constructive  one, 
and  it  may  be  largely  due  to  this  defect  of  origin  that  the 
movement  is  said  to  be  "  not  yet  beyond  the  experimental 
state."1 

The  United  States  Labor  Bulletin  already  quoted  makes  the 
recommendation  that  a  city  asking  the  State  for  an  employ- 
ment office  should  be  expected  to  furnish  and  equip  proper 
quarters,  the  State  to  provide  only  the  other  expenses.  If  this 
recommendation  were  adopted  it  would  help  to  regulate  the 
second  demand,  which  we  have  characterized  as  competitive 
local  spirit.  We  cannot  agree  with  the  recommendation  that 
the  office  quarters  should,  if  possible,  be  in  the  city  hall.  Any 
advantages  of  co-operation  with  other  city  departments  would 
in  our  judgment  be  overweighted  by  the  possibility  of  a  closer 
connection  with  local  politics.  Such  an  office  must  be  run  in  a 
thoroughly  nonpartisan  spirit,  with  an  advancing  standard 
of  effort  to  fit  the  right  worker  into  the  right  place,  irre- 
spective of  political  affiliations. 

The  extension  of  a  thorough  civil  service  examination  as 
a  test  of  fitness  for  all  superintendents  of  State  offices  would 
perhaps  tend  to  diminish  the  activities  of  those  who  wish  of- 
fices established  for  personal  reasons.     The  superintendents 

1  Department  of  Labor,  Bulletin  No.  68. 


68 

and  employees  of  the  Massachusetts  offices  are  required  to 
pass  a  civil  service  examination. 

The  elimination  of  these  three  demands  in  the  future  will 
leave  the  establishment  of  State  employment  offices  to  rest  on 
the  fourth  demand  alone,  the  only  one  that  should  be  consid- 
ered, —  that  of  social  utility. 

Function  of  the  State  Employment  Office. 

"  Reasonable  security  of  employment  of  the  breadwinner 
is  the  basis  of  all  private  duties  and  all  sound  action." *  This 
admits  of  no  argument  as  theory,  and  our  experience  makes 
it  a  vital  truth.  And  it  is  as  important  for  the  State  that  the 
less  eligible,  the  less  skilled  workers  should  be  employed  to 
the  extent  of  their  capacity  as  those  who  are  skilled.  The 
products  of  employment  are,  first,  the  character  of  the  em- 
ployed, and  second,  the  things  produced.  Placed  in  this  order 
in  the  need  of  occupation  there  is  no  great  and  there  is  no 
small,  simply  the  character  of  a  citizen.  Without  employ- 
ment character  deteriorates.  Without  employment  and  with- 
out money  worry  comes  and  health  goes.  The  State  must  be 
interested ;  its  life,  spiritual  and  physical,  is  threatened.  The 
question  is  whether  the  State  can,  without  weakening  the  in- 
dependence of  its  members,  do  more  than  protect  them  from 
unscrupulous  persons  when  in  search  of  work.  If  the  State 
should  do  more,  is  the  establishment  of  a  free  labor  bureau  the 
best  it  can  do  ?  We  regret  that  the  Department  of  Commerce 
and  Labor  has  not  yet  published  its  report,  bringing  to  date 
its  findings  in  regard  to  the  State  free  employment  offices  of 
the  country.  Its  report  for  1907,  on  the  free  labor  offices,  has 
a  fund  of  information  and  suggestion,  from  which  we  quote 
liberally;  that  information  is  of  the  year  1905. 

In  the  United  States  the  State  free  offices  have  developed 
simultaneously  with  private  offices  run  for  profit,  and  the 
offices  of  the  labor  unions,  maintained  for  the  benefit  of  mem- 
bers, to  whom  their  services  are  free.  The  offices  of  the  labor 
unions,  managed  as  part  of  the  mutual  benefit  plan,  have 
often  attained  a  high  degree  of  efficiency.     These  offices  have 

1  \V.  K.  Beveridge. 


69 

a  knowledge  of  the  needs  of  the  trade  and  the  abilities  of  the 
workman  which  should  enable  them  to  fit  men  to  places  as 
no  other  office  can  ever  hope  to  do.  The  private  employ- 
ment offices  in  the  larger  cities  have  adapted  themselves  to 
the  needs  of  different  classes  of  labor  with  that  marvelous 
aptitude  seen  in  the  differentiation  of  other  lines  of  modern 
industry.  The  necessity  of  making  the  business  pay  has  some- 
times brought  about  unscrupulous  methods,  it  is  true,  but  it 
has  also  given  the  community  keen  advisers  and  efficient  ad- 
ministrators. The  solicitors  employed  by  the  large  offices 
cannot  create  employment,  but  they  find  all  available  oppor- 
tunities, and  send  the  man  indicated  by  their  references  as 
best  fitted  to  the  position.  The  high-grade  offices  for  mercan- 
tile help  know  how  many  of  their  people  "  placed  "  actually 
accept  employment,  and,  up  to  a  period  of  six  weeks,  how 
long  they  remain.  Their  efficiency  in  placing  employees  is 
automatically  tested  by  their  system  of  payments. 

The  differentiated  private  offices  for  the  varied  kinds  of 
employment,  and  for  the  various  races  of  our  population,  are, 
however,  not  the  only  medium  through  which  employers  en- 
gage their  assistants.  The  commission  has  been  surprised  to 
learn  how  large  is  the  number  of  employers  who  never  use 
any  office,  who  never  advertise  in  the  press,  but  who  select 
from  the  applicants  that  personally  apply  on  their  own  in- 
itiative. These  employers  say  they  get  a  higher  grade  of 
workers  in  this  way.  Society  is  leavened  with  persons  who 
obtain  employment  through  friends,  former  employers,  and 
the  many  healthy,  normal  ways  of  personal  neighborly  inter- 
course. There  are  also  the  private  charitable  offices,  main- 
tained for  the  stranger  to  the  country,  who  is  ignorant  of  our 
customs  and  language.  These  offices,  however,  are  not  very 
large  or  so  conspicuously  effective  as  to  require  mention,  al- 
though they  meet  certain  needs.  In  writing  of  the  State  free 
offices  of  the  country  the  Department  of  Labor  report  states : 
"  As  a  rule  it  is  safer  to  trust  the  public  offices  for  the  lower 
grades  of  employment,  but  in  the  higher  grades  it  is  possible 
in  many  cases  to  get  better  service  through  the  private  of- 
fices."    And,  commenting  on  this:  "  Now,  while  it  may  be 


70 

readily  granted  that  the  chief  field  of  usefulness  of  these  of- 
fices is  found  in  caring  for  the  unskilled  labor  market,  such 
a  function  alone  must  forfeit  the  confidence  of  employers  in 
the  long  run  because  of  the  inferiority  of  the  help  supplied, 
and  the  result  is  bound  to  be  gradual  deterioration."1  This 
was  written  before  the  Massachusetts  offices  were  started. 
The  superintendent  of  the  Boston  office,  however,  has  de- 
plored the  attitude  of  employers  in  assuming  that  at  a  free 
office  they  could  get  a  worker  for  a  lower  wage  than  else- 
where. It  is  clear  that  if  the  public  office  is  to  compete  suc- 
cessfully with  the  high-grade  private  office,  it  can  be  only  by 
superintendent,  solicitors  or  committee  coming  personally  in 
contact  with  the  large  employers,  and  by  spending  money  or 
time  in  advertising.  In  Illinois  this  need  was  recognized  in 
the  statute,  and  each  superintendent  "  shall  immediately  put 
himself  in  communication  with  the  principal  manufacturers, 
merchants  and  other  employers  of  labor,  and  use  all  diligence 
in  securing  the  co-operation  of  the  said  employers  of  labor, 
with  the  purposes  and  objects  of  said  employment  offices ;  "  2 
and  $400  was  appropriated  annually  for  a  time  for  each 
Chicago  office,  and  $300  for  the  Peoria  office,  to  allow  the 
superintendent  to  advertise  in  the  newspapers.  The  later 
withdrawal  of  this  appropriation  is  deplored  by  the  present 
superintendent. 

The  commission  believes  it  is  not  the  appropriate  function 
of  the  State  office  itself  to  conduct  its  work  in  competition 
with  the  high-grade  private  office,  but  to  extend  its  use  more 
widely  to  the  less  eligible  workers,  or  to  those  peculiarly  liable 
to  exploitation,  or  in  special  need  of  guidance. 

Does  the  Free  Office  pay  ? 

From  the  evidence  at  hand  the  members  of  this  commis- 
sion are  convinced  it  is  unwise  to  place  a  free  office  in  a  city 
largely  devoted  industrially  to  one  type  of  manufacture,  in 
which  the  workers  are  unionized.  Tall  River  is  an  illustra- 
tion of  a  textile  city  where  the  workers  are  engaged  through 

1  Department  of  Labor,  Bulletin  No.  68. 

2  Illinois  acts  relating  to  employment  offices,  section  5. 


71 

the  union  office  or  at  the  gates  of  the  mills.  Industry  is  not 
sufficiently  diversified  to  make  a  real  demand  for  a  free  of- 
fice, and  it  is  a  question  whether  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  is 
justified  in  continuing  the  office  in  Fall  River.  It  is  clear 
from  the  reports  of  the  State  free  offices  that  the  Director  of 
the  Bureau  of  Statistics  shares  the  doubts  of  the  commission 
as  to  the  wisdom  of  continuing  the  Fall  River  office.  The 
statute^  however,  while  making  it  clear  that  the  Governor  and 
Council  may  open  an  office,  leaves  it  ambiguous,  the  Director 
states,  as  to  who  may  close  an  office  once  opened.  Reference 
has  been  made  to  the  difficulty  of  assessing  the  work  of  the 
Massachusetts  offices  by  the  statistics  available.  The  federal 
report  comments  thus :  — 

As  the  nature  of  the  work  of  the  public  employment  office  is 
such  as  appeals  to  the  generous  impulses  of  men,  there  is  no  cause 
for  wonder  if  the  reports  of  the  commissioners  and  superintendents 
occasionally  exhibit  a  greater  degree  of  enthusiasm  than  the  re- 
sults seem  to  warrant.  Moreover,  to  view  the  results  of  the  opera- 
tions of  the  bureaus  from  merely  a  local  standpoint  would  yield 
but  superficial  information  and  lead  to  uncertain  and  empirical 
deductions.1 

And  in  speaking  of  the  Ohio  offices :  — 

It  is  very  difficult  to  determine  accurately  the  number  of  posi- 
tions secured.  The  opportunities  for  error  are  numerous  and  hard 
to  overcome.  The  superintendents  of  the  Ohio  offices  require  that 
applicants  notify  them  whether  or  not  the  positions  to  which  they 
are  sent  were  secured  by  them.  This  is  asked  of  the  employer  also, 
and  if  the  employer  has  a  telephone  the  information  is  usually  easily 
secured,  but  sometimes  frequent  and  insistent  inquiries  are  required. 
Even  after  all  efforts  have  been  exhausted  there  is  usually  a  con- 
siderable number  of  careless  and  indifferent  employers  who  fail 
to  make  reply.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  this  number  does  not  exceed 
10  per  cent,  of  the  whole  number  of  positions  filled.  While,  there- 
fore, we  may  take  this  as  an  element  of  uncertainty  in  the  result,  it  is 
probably  counterbalanced  by  the  number  of  unreported  positions 
secured  through  the  offices.  This  is  the  contention  of  the  super- 
intendents, and  it  may  be  assumed  that  the  number  given  is  ap- 
proximately correct. 

1  Bureau  of  Labor,  Bulletin  No.  68. 


72 

The  data  afford  little  assistance  in  answering  the  question  whether 
the  price  is  too  high  for  the  service,  yet  it  is  a  question  that  should 
be  answered.  Of  the  nearly  16,000  positions  secured,  a  large  num- 
ber, perhaps  a  majority  of  them,  were  short  jobs  lasting  but  a  day 
or  only  an  hour  or  two.  If  all  were  of  this  class  the  expenditure 
of  84.6  cents  for  each  position  secured  might  be  regarded  as  un- 
justifiable. This  lack  of  uniformity  of  data,  since  short  jobs  count 
as  much  as  long  ones  in  the  reports,  vitiates  all  statistical  calcula- 
tions which  assume  such  a  uniformity.  Thus  there  is  small  satis- 
faction in  determining  the  amount  saved  to  the  working  classes  by 
the  use  of  such  averages. 

But  in  the  face  of  all  this  it  is  not  difficult  to  maintain  that  the 
expense  is  justifiable.  It  could  be  shown  that  even  with  the  rela- 
tively small  number  of  permanent  positions  secured,  the  economic 
gain  to  the  State  in  getting  men  into  positions  of  greater  pro- 
ductivity more  than  counterbalances  the  expense.  There  is  an 
abundant  demand  for  labor  in  many  parts  of  the  country  simply 
because  the  right  men  have  not  been  found  to  do  the  work,  and 
many  instances  of  this  condition  could  be  pointed  out  in  Ohio. 
Again,  from  another  point  of  view  the  expense  could  be  justified 
in  that  as  a  result  of  unemployment  one  man,  by  committing  some 
criminal  act,  might  easily  cost  the  State  the  entire  sum  expended 
upon  the  employment  office.1 

If,  however,  the  State  free  employment  office  is  to  be  con- 
tinued with  the  sole  object  of  securing  employment  for  per- 
sons seeking  vwrh  it  must  be  tested  by  efficiency  in  this  single 
respect.  The  additional  arguments  given  by  the  federal  re- 
port of  the  necessity  of  finding  work  gives  urgent  reason  for 
testing  the  efficiency  of  the  office  maintained  to  do  it.  The 
argument  that  a  man  may  become  a  criminal  unless  he  gets 
to  work  does  not  justify  maintaining  an  office  unless  the  of- 
fice becomes  successful  in  winning  the  confidence  of  employ- 
ers by  sending  workers  fitted  to  perform  the  kind  of  labor 
required.  Otherwise,  the  office  cannot  "  place  "  workers  in 
employment.  The  employment  office  is  of  the  nature  of  a 
business,  and  must  be  subject  to  the  usual  tests  of  business. 
The  manager  of  a  well-conducted  private  office  will  tell  you 
promptly  what  percentage  of  workers  agreeing  to  accept  posi- 
tions change  their  minds ;  and  of  those  who  accept,  what  per- 
centage remain  six  weeks;  will  tell  you  how  many  of  the 
positions  he  has  filled  were  of  temporary  character  and  how 

>  Bulletin,  No.  68. 


73 

many  would  be  permanent  if  the  worker  proves  efficient.  To 
ascertain  these  facts  from  the  Boston  office  information  was 
sought  from  the  employers  of  505  employees  for  whom  the 
office  secured  work  in  October.  This  number  seemed  to  the 
Director  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  and  to  the  commission  a 
fair  cross-section  test. 

The  employers  of  24  had  moved  and  were  not  found ;  let- 
ters to  2  were  returned  "  unknown ;  "  58  did  not  reply  to  let- 
ters ;  the  employers  of  76  workers  replied  by  letter ;  and 
employers  of  345  were  interviewed.  Of  the  421  employees 
about  whom  the  commission  obtained  information,  60  never 
applied  for  the  position,  83  were  not  remembered  as  applying 
for  the  position,  and  certainly  were  never  employed,  and  8 
were  known  to  have  applied  but  were  not  employed.  Thus 
36  per  cent,  never  entered  upon  engagement.  The  analysis 
of  one  large  order  for  workers  shows  how  the  misunderstand- 
ing, in  some  instances,  arises.  Sixty-six  men  were  sent  by 
the  State  office  to  the  central  office  of  a  large  company,  where 
3  men  were  rejected,  5  were  employed  at  once,  5  were  not 
needed  and  53  were  sent  for  employment  to  the  offices  of  the 
division  superintendents,  but  were  never  seen  again. 

Of  the  270  employed,  178  were  engaged  for  permanent  po- 
sitions, 92  for  temporary.  Of  the  178  accepting  permanent 
employment,  72  worked  only  one  week  or  less,  56  more  than 
one  week,  50  were  working  in  the  same  position  in  January. 
Of  those  who  did  not  work  so  long  as  they  might  have  done, 
68  "  left  of  their  own  accord/'  54  were  discharged  as  unsat- 
isfactory and  13  for  no  fault.  The  wages  paid  were  as  fol- 
lows: 52  of  the  92  temporary  workers  were  day  workers, 
namely,  cleaners,  scrubbers,  washers  and  general  workers, 
and  were  paid  15  to  25  cents  an  hour.  Less  than  $9  per 
week  was  paid  to  107  workers ;  2  of  these  were  paid  $3 ;  6, 
$3.50;  26,  $4;  11,  $4.50;  17,  $5;  13,  $6;  17,  $7,  and  15,  $8. 
More  than  $9  a  week  was  paid  to  103  workers;  14  of  these 
received  over  $3  a  day,  89  less  than  $3  a  day.  Of  the  421 
employees  127  were  domestics,  and  24  were  farm  hands. 
The  varying  character  of  the  employees  may  be  seen  from  the 
following  testimony :  — 


74 

One,  a  dish  washer,  is  still  at  work.  She  is  "  the  hest 
ever."  She  has  stayed  three  months,  and  her  employer  hopes 
she  will  stay  three  years. 

Another  woman  was  said  to  be  a  nice,  faithful  worker,  but 
had  too  many  sprees. 

One  general  housework  girl  who  went  out  into  the  country 
has  proved  to  be  a  treasure. 

One  employee  worked  a  few  weeks,  then  broke  into  the 
store  and  took  $700  in  goods  and  money. 

One  man  on  a  temporary  job  did  his  work  well,  but  ran  off 
with  some  of  the  firm's  goods. 

A  housekeeper  in  Xewton  says  no  such  person  as  the  girl 
inquired  about  was  ever  in  the  house.  She  inquired  inter- 
estedly where  the  State  free  employment  office  was,  and  if  she 
could  get  good  girls  there. 

In  the  first  annual  report  of  the  State  Free  Employment 
Offices  the  difficulty  of  securing  accurate  statistics  is  de- 
scribed and  the  method  adopted  to  check  errors.  "  The  fig- 
ures showing  the  number  of  positions  filled,  therefore,  may 
safely  be  regarded  as  well  within  the  facts ;  and  being  fur- 
nished by  the  parties  benefited  are  in  no  sense  dependent  upon 
the  individual  judgment  or  discretion  of  the  clerks  of  the  of- 
fice."1 And  in  the  third  annual  report  we  find  as  follows: 
"  In  regard  to  positions  filled  or  secured,  we  do  not  count  a 
position  secured  until  we  learn  from  reliable  sources  that 
such  is  the  fact,  so  that  each  position  which  we  count  as  se- 
cured will  stand  investigation." 

If  the  above  investigation  presents  a  fair  view  of  the  Boston 
office,  its  statistics  are  worthless,  and  any  claims  of  amounts 
saved  to  the  working  people  are  a  dream,  or,  as  the  Washing- 
ton reports  indicate  of  Ohio  figures,  enthusiasm  rather  than 
fact.  If  the  total  number  of  positions  secured  must  be  re- 
duced by  36  per  cent.,  and  if  only  12  per  cent,  remain  in 
positions  for  three  months,  the  value  of  this  office  to  the  com- 
munity must  be  reassessed,  and  the  cost  per  position  secured, 
recalculated. 

The  same  study  was  made  of  the  Springfield  office,  the 

1  First  report,  State  Free  Employment  Offices,  p.  7. 


75 


names  of  217  employees  being  given.  The  employers  of  iJ> 
did  not  reply;  of  the  remaining  180,  76  employed  applicants 
for  permanent  work  and  76  for  temporary;  3  applicant-  ap- 
plied but  were  not  engaged ;  4  were  engaged  but  did  not  work  ; 
2  were  sent  from  the  office  but  never  arrived ;  and  28  were  not 
remembered.  Of  the  76  engaged  for  permanent  work,  25 
were  working  in  the  same  position  at  the  end  of  two  months, 
18  worked  one  week  or  less,  33  more  than  a  week.  Day  work- 
ers numbered  58,  domestics  35,  hotel  help  16,  farm  hands  38. 
Thirty-five  were  paid  $9  or  more  a  week,  25  less  than  $9,  and 
the  pay  of  10  was  not  stated.  Of  those  who  might  have 
worked  longer  than  they  did,  29  left  of  their  "  own  accord," 
25  were  discharged  as  unsatisfactory,  and  9  for  no  fault. 

The  Fall  River  study  was  made  in  March  from  January 
placements,  numbering  61,  of  whom  5  were  not  heard  from. 
Permanent  engagements  were  26,  temporary  22,  6  were  not 
remembered  or  engaged,  and  2  were  engaged  but  did  not 
work.  Day  workers  were  18,  domestics  17,  hotel  help  8,  and 
farm  hands  2.  Xine  dollars  a  week  or  more  were  paid  to  2 
others,  and  less  than  $9  to  2.  The  wage  paid  the  remainder 
was  not  stated. 


Not 
heard 
from. 

Did  not 
apply. 

Not 
remem- 
bered 
to  have 
applied; 
not  em- 
ployed. 

Applied 

but 
not  em- 
ployed. 

Tempo- 
rary. 

Springfield 

Fall  River, 

84 

28 

5 

60 
2 

83 

28 

6 

8 
7 
2 

92 
76 
22 

Permanent. 

Total 
Names 
given. 

Working 
Three 

Months 
after. 

Working 
Two 

Months 
after. 

One 

Week  or 

Less. 

More 

than  One 

Week. 

Total 
heard 
from. 

Boston, 
Springfield, 
Fall  River, 

50 

25 
11 

72 

18 

4 

56 
33 
11 

505 
217 

61 

1 

421 

189 

56 

76 


Discharged. 

Wages. 

Left  Own 
Accord. 

No 

Fault. 

Un- 
satisfac- 
tory. 

15  to  25 

Cents 

an  Hour. 

$9  a  Week 
and  More. 

Less  than 
S9. 

Boston, 
Springfield,  . 
Fall  River,    . 

68 
29 
13 

13 
9 

1 

54 

25 

3 

52 

58 
18 

103 
2 

107 
2 

A  comparison  of  efficiency,  by  the  indications  of  this  test, 
shows  that  12  per  cent,  of  Boston's  placements  were  at  work 
three  months  after  engagement,  13  per  cent,  of  those  made  by 
the  Springfield  office  were  at  work  two  months  after  engage- 
ment, and  19  per  cent,  of  those  made  by  the  Fall  River  office 
were  in  the  positions  secured  two  months  before. 

Thirty-six  per  cent,  of  the  employees  "  placed  "  in  the  Bos- 
ton office  were  not  placed,  19  per  cent,  in  the  Springfield  of- 
fice, and  13  per  cent,  in  the  Fall  River  office.  In  still  another 
way  the  comparison  is  unfavorable  to  the  larger  city.  Forty 
per  cent,  of  those  entering  on  permanent  employment  secured 
at  the  Boston  office  remained  one  week  or  less;  23  per  cent,  at 
Springfield ;  and  at  Fall  Biver  the  figure  indicating  a  poor 
fitting  of  employee  to  task  fell  to  15  per  cent.  In  all  3  cities 
the  commission  found  employers  who  spoke  well  of  the  office, 
the  heartiest  appreciation  and  least  criticism  being  heard  in 
Springfield,  where  there  are  few  well-conducted  general  pri- 
vate agencies.  In  Boston,  the  commission  interviewed  43 
additional  employers  whose  names  were  given  as  patrons  of 
the  office,  but  few  of  these  used  the  office  for  their  skilled  or 
better  paid  labor,  as  "  so  little  is  known  of  the  applicants,  no 
references  looked  up  at  the  State  free."  The  25  charitable 
agencies,  with  2  exceptions,  reported  but  little  co-operation 
and  practically  no  assistance  from  the  Boston  office. 

The  superintendent  stated  that  in  certain  months  the  Bos- 
ton office  is  useful  in  filling  positions  in  the  White  Mountain 
hotels  and  in  the  southern  winter  resorts.  The  commission 
has  also  been  told  that  valuable  service  is  rendered  at  the 
Boston  office  in  registering  women  for  work  by  the  hour  or 
day  in  cleaning,  scrubbing  and  kindred  tasks.    Relatively  few 


77 

of  the  private  offices  perform  this  function,  and  the  commis- 
sion has  heard  employers  express  more  satisfaction  with  this 
department  of  the  office  than  any  other.  Both  this  depart- 
ment and  the  department  for  women  in  mercantile  positions 
appeared  to  the  commission  to  be  conducted  with  kindliness, 
interest  and  without  perfunctory  routine.  Those  in  charge 
of  the  departments  for  men  showed  what  may  be  termed  more 
routine  spirit  and  less  personality  in  seeking  to  fit  workers 
and  positions  together.  The  cost  for  each  position  reported 
filled  was,  in  1910,  93  cents;  for  each  person  reported  served, 
$1.54. 

The  results  of  the  investigation  have  made  the  commission 
consider  favorably  the  experience  of  the  Los  Angeles  office, 
which  was  created  in  1893  as  a  free  office  supported  by  the 
labor  unions  in  order  to  regulate  unscrupulous  private  offices 
by  free  competition.  The  support  is  now  borne  by  the  city  of 
Los  Angeles,  and  since  November,  1904,  a  fee  of  25  cents  is 
charged  for  every  position  secured. 

The  method  followed  is  briefly  this:  no  person  is  permitted  to 
register  unless  there  is  a  job  in  prospect  which  he  is  willing  to 
accept.  He  then  deposits  his  25  cents,  for  which  he  receives  a 
receipt  like  the  following,  of  which  a  duplicate  is  kept  in  the 
register :  — 

2.t  cents,  no. 

City  Labor  Bureau,  217  East  Second  Street, 
Los  Angeles,  Cal.,  ,  19 

Received  of  twenty-five  cents,  being  the  fee 

required  for  registration  upon  the  city  labor  bureau  register,  author- 
ized to  be  collected  under  ordinance  No.  10446  (N".  S.),  approved  Jan. 
16,  1905. 

Manager,  City  Labor  Bureau. 

The  applicant  must  go  at  once  to  secure  the  work,  and  whether 
successful  or  unsuccessful  he  must  within  a  few  hours  let  the  office 
know  the  result,  otherwise  he  forfeits  the  fee.  This  small  charge 
does  not  hinder  any  one  from  the  use  of  the  office. 

Cases  of  destitution  are  by  no  means  infrequent,  and  these  need 
all  the  more  the  sen-ices  of  such  an  office.  Accordingly  in  such 
cases  another  form  is  provided,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy:  — 


78- 

No. 

To  the  Manager  of  the  City  Labor  Bureau. 

Dear  Sir  :  —  In  accordance  with  the  conditions  of  registration  re- 
quired by  ordinance  No.  10446  (N.  S.),  I  herewith  notify  you  that  I 
am  "  unable  to  pay  the  registration  fee  of  twenty-five  cents  in  advance," 
for  the  privilege  of  registering  on  your  books,  but  I  do  hereby  agree 
to  pay  to  you  the  said  fee  out  of  the  first  money  I  earn  under  the 
registration  made  this  day. 

Applicant. 
I   herewith   endorse   above    statement. 

City  Cleric. 

This  is  also  printed  in  duplicate,  and  a  carbon  copy  kept  in  the 
register  as  a  voucher  for  the  manager,  just  as  in  the  preceding  case. 
It  is  not  honored  by  the  manager  until  countersigned  by  the  city 
clerk. 

The  manager  states  that  about  half  of  the  positions  secured  are 
short  jobs,  lasting  but  a  day  or  two,  and  that  if  it  is  for  less  than 
two  days  he  gets  the  man  another  without  additional  charge. 

The  gains  effected  by  charging  a  fee  for  each  position  secured 
may  be  thus  enumerated :  — 

1.  There  is  a  gain  in  the  ease  of  securing  accuracy  of  returns, 
since  a  man  is  reasonably  sure  to  return  for  his  fee  if  he  does  not 
secure  the  work. 

2.  There  is  a  gain  in  the  saving  of  expense  to  the  public.  A 
charge  of  50  instead  of  25  cents  would  probably  have  made  the 
office  almost  sulf-supporting. 

3.  The  Los  Angeles  experiment  indicates,  as  one  would  expect, 
that  the  self-respecting  laborer  prefers  to  pay  something  for  the 
service,  while  the  vagrants  will  leave  whenever  a  fee  is  charged.1 

To  find  that  151  persons  out  of  421  whom  you  believed 
successfully  at  work  through  your  efforts  never  applied  or 
were  not  accepted,  makes  one  consider  the  advisability  of  try- 
ing an  experiment  so  simple,  and  designed  automatically  to 
separate  the  person  actually  wishing  to  work  from  the  one 
preferring  merely  to  look  for  work. 

Under  the  present  system  the  office  is  uncertain  of  the  de- 
sire for  work  in  all  its  employees,  yet  as  a  public  office  it  is 
obliged  to  give  opportunities  to  all,  and  believes  it  necessary 
to  send  several  persons  to  apply  for  almost  every  position. 
This  practice  annoys  some  employers  and  proves  discouraging 
to  many  honest  work-seekers. 

1  Department  of  Labor,  Bulletin  No.  68. 


7!) 

bid  the  Boston  office  pay  in  the  month  when  we  made  oiir 
investigation?     Every  applicant  counted  as  " placed }i 

the  Commonwealth  93  cents.  The  151  applicants  who  <li<l 
not  care  enough  about  work  to  apply  for  it  cost  $140.43 ; 
adding  this  amount,  increases  the  cost  for  each  of  the  270 
positions  secured  to  $1.45.  Yet  72  of  these  persons  served 
worked  only  one  week  or  less,  92  secured  only  temporary 
work,  and  only  50  fitted  into  work  lasting  three  months.  We 
believe  the  maintenance  of  the  office  was  not  justified  by  these 
results,  or  by  the  evidence  we  obtained  from  employers,  or 
by  the  evidence  secured  by  social  workers.  We  urgently  rec- 
ommend a  fair  trial  of  the  Los  Angeles  plan  of  charging  25 
cents,  and  so  relieving  the  office  of  the  presence,  cost  and  ex- 
ample of  the  loafer.  We  realize  that  this  can  be  done  only 
by  change  of  statute.  Although  we  are  forced  to  conclude 
that,  as  at  present  maintained,  the  services  of  the  State  offices 
to  the  community  do  not  justify  the  expense,  we  do  believe 
there  are  other  special  services  which  these  offices  should 
undertake,  and  which  we  shall  outline  in  following  sections. 

Farm  Labor. 

Inasmuch  as  the  commission  was  directed  to  consider  the 
extension  of  the  services  of  the  free  offices  to  the  farmers  of 
the  State,  a  special  though  hurried  study  was  made  of  farm 
labor.  The  schedules  of  questions  returned  from  the  farmers 
numbered  but  97,  yet  as  these  questions  were  distributed 
through  agricultural  organizations,  it  may  be  fair  to  conclude 
they  were  discussed  by  groups  of  farmers,  and  that  each  reply 
possibly  represents  the  opinion  of  several  farmers. 

If  we  group  the  towns  heard  from  according  to  location, 
we  have  seven  groups,  one  in  northeastern  Massachusetts,  one 
in  southeastern  Massachusetts,  and  one  each  in  the  vicinity  of 
Worcester,  Springfield,  Fitchburg,  Greenfield  and  Pittsfield. 

The  Worcester  group  is  the  only  one  in  which  employment 
offices  seem  to  be  in  favor  as  a  means  of  obtaining  help.  This 
may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  offices  in  Worcester  deal  more 
largely  with  farm  labor  than  Tlm<e  in  any  other  city.  .\Fore 
than  half  the  farmers  heard  from  in  this  vicinity  usually  re- 
sort to  office-,  while  the  remaind<  r  seem  to  have  little  prefer- 


80 

ence  as  to  methods  of  obtaining  help.  The  group  centering 
around  Fitchburg  is  about  evenly  divided  as  to  the  use  of 
employment  offices  and  other  methods.  In  the  Greenfield 
group  there  is  not  a  single  vote  in  favor  of  employment  of- 
fices. In  the  towns  around  Springfield,  the  largest  group, 
the  vote  is  four-fifths  in  favor  of  other  methods.  [Northeast- 
ern Massachusetts  shows  about  half  in  favor  of  the  use  of  em- 
ployment offices,  but  in  southeastern  Massachusetts  all  prefer 
other  methods,  although  most  of  the  towns  are  within  con- 
venient distance  of  Boston  or  Fall  River.  None  of  the  towns 
heard  from  are  more  than  25  miles  away  from  large  centers, 
where  employment  offices  are  found. 

Summing  up  all  the  answers  received,  we  find  that  59  per 
cent,  secured  their  help  by  other  methods,  as  against  27  per 
cent,  who  use  employment  offices,  while  13  per  cent,  have  no 
special  preference.  Those  who  do  not  patronize  agencies  ob- 
tain their  help  in  various  ways.  A  few  advertise,  and  some 
in  the  vicinity  of  Boston  get  men  from  the  seed  stores,  all  of 
which  furnish  them  without  charge. 

Farm  hands  are  largely  obtained  locally,  many  of  them  be- 
ing residents  of  the  neighborhood.  When  not  obtained  in  this 
way  men  who  apply  at  the  door  are  hired.  Many  of  these 
itinerant  farm  hands  are  foreigners.  In  the  northeastern 
part  of  the  State  Greeks  and  Assyrians  do  much  of  the  farm 
work,  while  in  central  and  western  Massachusetts  Poles  and 
Russians  predominate.  The  latter  are  said  to  give  good  sat- 
isfaction, as  they  are  steady  and  "  willing  to  be  told."  The 
Poles  are  industrious  and  ambitious  to  acquire  property  of 
their  own.  Large  numbers  of  them  are  buying  up  farms  as 
fast  as  they  can  accumulate  the  necessary  funds.  The  Census 
of  1905  gives  the  number  of  farmers,  planters,  overseers,  flor- 
ists, gardeners  and  nurserymen  in  the  Commonwealth  as 
41,044,  and  of  these  28.3  per  cent,  are  foreign  born;  the 
number  of  agricultural  laborers  as  28,599,  and  of  these 
41.9  per  cent,  are  foreign  born. 

While  a  fair  proportion  of  farmers,  as  noted,  make  fre- 
quent use  of  agencies,  only  a  small  number  speak  unequiv- 
ocally in  favor  of  them.  Many  say  they  patronize  them  only 
because  they  can  obtain  help  in  no  other  way.     The  offices 


81 

are  said  to  furnish  an  inferior  grade  of  help,  although  the 
agents  are  not  held  responsible  for  this,  as  it  is  not  within 
their  power  to  create  a  good  supply  of  labor.  One  man 
says,  "  They  do  the  best  they  can  considering  the  goods  they 
handle." 

About  25  per  cent,  of  those  who  express  an  opinion  on  the 
subject  make  various  criticisms  of  the  management  of  offices 
and  the  business  methods  of  the  agents.  One  correspondent 
accuses  some  agents  of  being  "  skins,"  and  of  being  in  the 
business  only  for  what  they  can  get  out  of  it.  Another  says 
farm  agencies  are  "  a  farce  or  a  failure,"  though  the  agencies 
from  which  he  obtains  office  help  give  satisfactory  service.  A 
rather  common  complaint  is  that  agents  do  not  refund  fees 
when  an  employee  fails  to  fulfill  his  engagement. 

The  most  general  criticisms  concern  the  character  of  the 
men  sent  out  and  the  ignorance  of  the  agent  in  regard  to  them. 
In  order  to  place  applicants  agents  do  not  hesitate  to  rec- 
ommend those  about  whom  they  know  nothing.  The  men 
sent  out  are  unreliable  and  inefficient.  They  stay  a  few  days 
and  then  leave,  after  the  employer  has,  perhaps,  paid  both 
office  fee  and  railway  fare  for  them.  One  discouraged  cor- 
respondent complains  in  disgust  that  when  he  makes  a  special 
request  for  a  good  worker,  all  he  gets  is  a  "  bum." 

About  79  per  cent,  of  employers  express  a  preference  for 
men  who  can  give  references,  if  it  is  possible  to  get  them. 
Few  applicants  at  employment  offices,  however,  can  furnish 
references.  Stricter  investigation  of  employees  would  doubt- 
lesfl  meet  with  the  approval  of  patrons,  and  increase  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  office. 

The  complaint  in  regard  to  shortage  of  help  is  not  confined 
to  any  one  section,  but  is  common  throughout  the  State.  The 
general  opinion  is  that  efficient  help  is  getting  more  and  more 
scarce,  although  unreliable  help  can  usually  be  found.  One 
man  says,  "  The  help  question  is  driving  hundreds  of  farmers 
out  of  the  business."  While  this  expression  of  opinion  may 
be  the  exaggeration  of  a  particularly  discouraged  employer, 
it  is  true  that  57.5  per  cent  of  the  replies  received  indicate 
difficulty  along  this  line.     The  shortage  is  more  keenly  felt, 


82 


of  course,  in  summer.  Higher  wages  are  paid  during  this 
season  than  in  winter.  One  man  thinks  farmers  would  gladly 
pay  $5  a  month  more  than  the  present  rates  for  the  sake  of 
getting  good  help.  An  interesting  fact  noted  by  one  corre- 
spondent is  that  women  and  children,  mostly  foreigners,  sup- 
ply the  needed  labor  in  the  tobacco  and  onion  fields  in  the 
middle  of  the  State.  This  shortage  of  help  is  attributed  to 
various  causes :  to  long  hours,  dislike  of  the  country,  low 
wages  and  irregularity  of  the  work,  as  comparatively  few 
positions  continue  throughout  the  year. 

The  wages  given  in  the  replies  received  are  as  follows :  — 


With 

Board,  per 

Month. 


Without 

Board,  per 

Month. 


Per  Day. 


Southeastern  Mass., 
Northeastern  Mass., 
Fitchburg, 
Greenfield, 
Worcester,  . 
Springfield, 

Pittsfield,    . 


$25-$30 
20-  25 
15-  35 
18-  28 
15-  30 
10-  30 

18-  30 


$45-?50 


35-50 


10i 

10-15 > 
40-45 2 


$1  50-52  30 

1  20 

2  00 
1  75 

1  75-2  00 
1  50 


1  Per  week. 


2  Per  month,  sometimes  with  house  and  milk. 


Wages  below  $20  per  month  with  board  are  usually  winter 
rates.  The  complaints  of  shortage  of  labor  seem  to  have  no 
relation  to  the  amount  of  wages  paid. 

A  few  fortunate  employers  not  only  have  no  difficulty  in 
finding  all  the  help  they  want,  but  are  embarrassed  with  a 
superabundance  of  applications.  One  man  says  he  has  from 
four  to  twelve  applications  for  every  vacant  place.  Another 
wishes  that  more  laborers  would  patronize  employment  offices, 
and  relieve  him  of  their  solicitations  for  situations  that  he 
cannot  supply.  An  employment  office  agent  in  the  center  of 
the  State,  who  places  large  numbers  of  farm  hands,  claims 
that  she  has  no  difficulty  in  filling  good  positions.  She  thinks 
the  scarcity  of  farm  labor  is  due  to  the  fact  that  there  are  so 
many  poor  places.  A  competent  man  wants  proper  imple- 
ments with  which  to  do  his  work,  and  this  is  just  as  true  of 


83 

the  farm  hand  as  of  the  carpenter  or  mechanic.  A  good  em- 
ployer knows  this,  but  there  are  few  farmers  in  this  State 
who  realize  it.  Another  difficulty  is  that  one  man  on  a  place 
has  to  do  a  little  of  every  sort  of  work.  The  hours  are 
long  and  irregular,  and  he  is  likely  to  be  poorly  fed  and 
housed.  Moreover,  the  work  is  not  steady.  On  large  estates, 
where  several  men  are  kept  all  the  year  round,  each  man  has 
certain  definite  duties  to  perform  and  keeps  to  certain  regu- 
lar hours. 

Foreigners  —  Finns,  Poles  and  Swedes  —  who  are  well  ed- 
ucated, and  who  have  learned  a  trade  in  their  own  country, 
frequently  take  places  on  farms  in  order  to  learn  English. 
After  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  the  language  they  take  up 
some  other  line  of  work. 

The  State  free  employment  offices  are  not  generally  used 
by  those  farmers  from  whom  replies  were  received.  Only 
16.6  per  cent  of  them  resort  to  the  State  offices,  and  of  those 
who  have  tried  them,  69  per  cent  consider  the  help  obtained 
inferior  to  that  furnished  by  private  offices.  In  spite  of  this 
apparent  lack  of  popularity,  however,  there  are  many  who, 
though  having  had  no  experience  with  them,  approve  of  such 
offices  on  general  principles,  and  even  advocate  an  extension 
of  the  system.  They  think  such  agencies  should  be  service- 
able if  properly  managed.  At  present  they  do  not  seem  to  be 
widely  known  except  to  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the 
cities  of  Boston  and  Springfield.  Little  work  of  this  sort  is 
done  at  the  Fall  River  offices.  The  criticism  is  made  that 
they  do  not  advertise,  and  so  do  not  get  a  good  class  of  em- 
ployees or  employers.  It  is  generally  agreed  that  if  they 
could  be  conducted  along  the  lines  of  the  best  private  offices, 
and  an  effort  made  to  understand  the  farming  situation  and 
to  reach  farmers  and  farm  hands,  they  might  prove  of  invalu- 
able service  to  the  farmers  of  the  State.  The  superintendent 
of  the  Springfield  State  free  office  has  given  the  commission 
a  list  of  500  farmers  who  have  used  that  office,  and  the  com- 
mission regrets  that  lack  of  time  has  made  it  impossible  to 
interview  or  correspond   with  tl  mployers.      It    i-.   how- 

ever, clear  that  if  the  farmers  of  the  whole  State  are  to  be 


84 

served  the  offices  must  advertise  or  send  solicitors  to  meetings 
of  the  agricultural  organizations,  or  meet  the  farmers  in  other 
ways.  The  offices  must  also  find  good  farm  labor,  and  win 
a  reputation  for  having  such.  Something  may  be  done  by 
trying  to  send  some  of  the  surplus  city  labor  to  the  farms, 
but  the  man  who  does  not  know  how  to  milk  a  cow,  and  is 
lonely  when  a  few  feet  from  a  street  corner,  is  an  unwelcome 
farm  hand  unless  he  is  alert,  eager  to  learn  and  willing  to 
work  for  less  wages  until  he  has  learned  to  do  the  farm  tasks. 
The  offices  must  reach  the  immigrants  who  know  farm  work, 
and  fit  them  into  positions  in  the  country  before  they  settle  in 
the  cities.  This  work  requires  ingenuity  and  initiative,  and 
either  special  appropriation  or  a  rearrangement  of  the  present 
appropriation  must  be  made  to  carry  it  on.  There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  farmers  and  farm  hands  will  come  to 
the  offices  unsolicited  in  much  larger  numbers  in  the  future 
than  they  have  in  the  past. 

EXPEBIMENTS    ELSEWHERE. 

The  experiments  of  some  public  offices  in  the  country,  and 
the  criticisms  made  of  them,  are  suggestive  for  effort  in  the 
future.  The  offices  in  Seattle,  Minneapolis  and  Kansas  City, 
Mo.,  have,  through  their  strategic  location  and  efficiency,  de- 
veloped a  large  business  in  sending  workers  to  other  States. 

The  office  in  Minneapolis  was  opened  July  1,  1905,  and  up  to 
December  7  of  the  same  year  it  had  secured  4,359  positions.  This 
was  done  at  an  average  cost  to  the  State  of  only  17.5  cents  per 
position  secured.  Minneapolis  is  centrally  located  with  reference 
to  a  periodic  demand  for  labor.  The  pineries  to  the  eastward 
in  Wisconsin  and  Michigan  call  for  a  great  many  laborers  during 
the  winter,  and  the  wheat  fields  to  the  westward  make  a  corre- 
sponding demand  in  the  summer.  The  two  combined  have  virtually 
called  into  existence  a  supply  of  vagrant  labor,  which  centralizes 
about  Minneapolis  and  at  times  overstocks  the  local  labor  market. 
Minneapolis  is,  therefore,  a  clearing  house,  with  the  free  employ- 
ment office  for  its  center.  Compared  with  other  offices  of  its  kind, 
the  free  employment  office  of  Minneapolis  seems  to  enjoy  the  pub- 
lic confidence  and  respect  to  a  rather  unusual  degree.  Many  speak 
with  enthusiasm  of  its  work,  especially  as  a  labor  exchange.1 

•  Bulletin  No.  68. 


85 


The  Kansas  City  office  was  opened  Jan.  15,  1900,  and  has  built 
up  a  good  reputation  for  efficiency.  Geographically  it  is  most 
fortunately  located,  being  the  central  distributing  point  for  labor  in 
the  southwest.  For  the  same  reason  the  field  is  an  attractive  one 
for  private  agencies,  and  neither  the  State  law  nor  State  competi- 
tion is  a  sufficient  restraint  upon  them.  All  applicants  for  em- 
ployment are  required  to  fill  out  an  application  blank,  and  are  not 
considered  without  this  formal  proceeding.  Moreover,  testimonials 
are  required,  even  for  contract  work,  as  the  superintendent  says 
that  contractors  must  be  protected.  This  is  setting  a  high  stand- 
ard, and  it  is  a  question  whether  the  contractor  will  appreciate  it 
enough  to  give  the  State  employment  office  his  patronage.  More 
than  any  other  one  thing  the  furnishing  of  harvest  hands  to  the 
farmers  of  Missouri,  Oklahoma,  Kansas  and  Nebraska  has  brought 
this  office  into  public  notice.1 

In  the  last  two  years  the  refusal  of  the  railways  to  reduce 
rates  to  men  sent  from  the  State  office,  and  the  large  number 
of  men  who  found  their  own  way  to  the  fields  because  of  the 
]ack  of  work  in  the  cities,  reduced  the  amount  of  work  done 
by  the  office. 

The  success  of  the  Seattle  office  in  the  number  of  positions  se- 
cured is  extraordinary,  far  surpassing  that  of  any  other  office  in 
the  United  States.  The  maximum  record  is  that  of  the  year  1903, 
when  30,306  positions  were  secured,  a  monthly  average  of  2,526, 
at  a  cost  to  the  city  of  4.8S  cents  per  position.  The  cost  per  posi- 
tion for  the  whole  period  amounted  to  only  6.22  cents.  In  the  re- 
port for  1901  it  was  estimated  that  the  cost  through  private  agencies 
was  about  $1.25  per  position.  Considering  this  estimate  true  for 
the  whole  period,  1894  to  1904,  the  saving  to  laborers  by  the  Seattle 
public  employment  office  has  been  $240,812  on  the  202,738  posi- 
tions secured.  Such  a  record  is  satisfactory  even  if  every  position 
secured  has  been  a  short  job  and  the  labor  unskilled.  The  Seattle 
free  employment  office  differs  from  every  other  one  in  the  United 
States  in  the  manner  of  the  appointment  of  its  personnel.  The 
commissioner  of  labor  of  Seattle  is  secretary  of  the  civil  service 
commission  of  the  city.  His  assistant,  who  has  charge  of  the  free 
employment  office,  is  selected  according  to  civil  service  methods, 
as  is  also  the  clerk.  In  efficiency  of  management  the  office  com- 
pares favorably  with  any  in  the  country.  The  office  makes  no  record 
of  applicants  for  employment  except  for  skilled  positions.  These 
are  registered  by  card,  and  renewal   is   required  every   two   week-. 

1  Bulletin  No.  68. 


86 

"When  a  man  is  sent  to  a  position  he  is  given  a  slip  which  is  a 
means  of  identification  to  the  employer.  If  the  employer  is  within 
the  city  this  slip  must  be  signed  by  him  in  case  of  engagement  and 
returned  within  three  hours.  If  outside  the  city  a  postal  card  is 
sent  to  the  employer,  to  be  returned  with  a  similar  statement.  No 
positions  are  recorded  without  positive  and  definite  information.1 

In  1909  the  Seattle  office  filled  38,846  positions  for  $1,- 
623.05,  a  cost  of  4.18  cents  for  each  position.  This  cost, 
compared  with  the  Massachusetts  cost,  96  cents,  is  marvel- 
ously  low. 

In  January,  1904,  at  the  request  of  the  Nebraska  bureau 
of  labor,  the  commissioners  of  labor  in  that  State,  Iowa,  Mis- 
souri, Kansas,  Minnesota,  South  Dakota  and  Oklahoma  met 
and  organized  the  Western  Association  of  State  Free  Employ- 
ment Bureaus,  to  devise  methods  whereby,  through  co-opera- 
tion, the  nonresident  laborers  needed  in  the  wheat  belt  might 
be  secured. 

It  has  been  carefully  estimated  that  should  the  harvest  occur  in 
these  seven  States  at  the  same  time  there  would  be  needed  ap- 
proximately 90,000  nonresident  laborers,  but  since  it  occurs  at 
different  seasons,  beginning  in  June  in  Oklahoma  and  ending  in 
October  in  Dakota  and  Minnesota,  about  one-half  of  that  number, 
or  45,000  men,  will  be  necessary  to  harvest  the  small-grain  crop.1 

By  thus  working  together  the  public  offices  may  become  in 
a  true  sense  labor  exchanges,  and  meet  the  need  of  workers  in 
one  State  from  the  excess  supply  in  another.  In  this  way 
they  might  begin  to  bring  to  the  distribution  of  labor  that 
foresight  and  organization  so  conspicuously  present  in  most 
forms  of  American  industry,  and  yet  still  conspicuously  lack- 
ing in  the  most  vital  part  of  all  industry,  —  the  distribution 
of  the  producers  themselves. 

Interstate  and  Seasonal  Employment  for  Immigrants. 

Many  complaints  are  made  against  the  private  offices  sup- 
plying large  gangs  of  laborers  through  contractors  for  work 
on  the  railways  and  other  large  engineering  and  contracting 

'  Bulletin  No.  68. 


87 

jobs.  It  is  here  that  the  State  offices  have  a  large  opportu- 
nity in  protecting  men  from  whom  extra  fees  are  undoubtedly 
exacted  and  who  suffer  from  misrepresentation  of  various 
kinds.  Many  men,  often  ignorant  of  our  language,  learn  all 
they  know  of  American  honor  and  citizenship  from  the  con- 
tract labor  camp,  and  the  employment  office  keepers  and 
others  who  charge  high  for  sending  them  there.  To  say  that 
they  need  not  accept  the  work,  or  come  to  this  country  to  get 
it,  is  but  an  unworthy  begging  of  the  question.  These  large 
construction  tasks  are  for  the  public  good,  and  we  owe  to  the 
human  beings  who  perform  them  protection  from  abuse  and 
extortion. 

"What  could  be  done  by  better  organization  of  the  labor  market 
is  to  put  railways  and  other  large  employers  in  contact  with  the 
widest  possible  range  of  selection.  As  it  is  at  present,  railroads  are 
continually  losing  by  means  of  the  poor  labor  they  must  put  up 
with  on  construction  gangs,  and  decent  laborers  likewise  are  sub- 
jected to  loss  and  indignities  by  reason  thereof.  The  railways 
stand  so  much  in  need  of  this  help  that  they  dare  not  offend  the 
private  agencies  whence  they  get  it;  the  private  agencies  have  an 
easy  hold  on  the  contractor,  who  shares  their  receipts,  and  thus  the 
contract  system,  a  wasteful,  injurious  method  to  both  sides,  con- 
tinues to  thrive.  What  is  needed  is  a  wider  labor  market  to 
appeal  to  than  the  locality  affords,  a  co-ordination  of  the  efforts  of 
the  States  through  the  free  employment  offices.1 

Boston  is  in  a  position  to  supply  men  for  the  lumber  camps 
of  Isew  England.  Serious  and  definite  complaint  has  come 
to  the  commission  of  a  nonresident  employment  agent  who 
comes  to  the  city,  obtains  desk  room,  usually  in  the  office  of 
private  employment  bureaus,  engages  large  numbers  of  men, 
charges  a  sum  that  covers  transportation,  food  and  other 
fees  not  specified  in  the  receipt,  and  then  leaves  the  State. 
It  is  alleged  that  double  fees  are  paid,  one  for  the  agent, 
another  to  the  private  employment  office  keeper  at  whose  desk 
he  sits.  These  charges  are  hard  to  prove,  harder  to  dis- 
prove, and  are  made  wherever  large  numbers  of  men  are 
sent  from  one  State  to  another.  It  is  fair  to  conclude  that 
the  opportunity  is  one  of  peculiar  temptation  to  the  private 

■  Bulletin  No.  68. 


88 

office  keeper,  and  that  such  placing  is  difficult  to  supervise. 
An  able  article  on  this  subject,  written  by  Miss  Abbott,  the 
assistant  director  of  the  League  for  the  Protection  of  Im- 
migrants, in  Chicago,  puts  in  this  trenchant  phrase  the 
need  of  the  immigrant :  — 

At  no  time  does  he  need  disinterested  guidance  and  help  more 
than  in  securing  his  first  work,  and  yet  he  is  dependent  in  most 
cases  upon  the  private  employment  agent,  and  he  becomes,  because 
of  his  ignorance  and  necessities,  a  great  temptation  to  an  honest 
agent  and  a  great  opportunity  to  an  unscrupulous  one.1 

Boston,  it  must  be  remembered,  is  an  immigrant  port,  yet 
the  first  report  of  the  Massachusetts  State  office  states :  — 

Although  we  have  kept  in  close  communication  with  the  various 
immigration  societies,  and  have,  on  occasion,  sent  representatives  of 
the  office  to  the  incoming  steamers  with  a  view  to  obtaining  the 
labor  necessary  to  meet  the  needs  of  employers,  little  success  has 
attended  our  efforts.  In  only  a  very  few  instances  is  the  class  of 
immigrant  girls  now  coming  to  our  shores  found  willing  to  engage 
in  domestic  service,  the  overwhelming  majority  of  them  preferring 
some  other  kind  of  employment.  The  heaviest  immigration  at  the 
present  time  from  Europe  is  that  from  Italy,  but  the  Italian  girls 
will  not  listen  to  a  proposition  to  enter  household  sendee.  Usually 
relatives  or  friends  are  on  hand  at  the  wharf  to  greet  the  prospec- 
tive American  citizen,  and,  as  a  rule,  he  has  a  fixed  destination. 
There  are,  moreover,  local  organizations  that  have  agents  to  look  after 
the  interests  of  the  several  nationalities.  So  it  happens  that,  for  one 
reason  or  another,  the  newly  arrived  immigrant  seldom  finds  his 
way  into  the  public  employment  office,  but  secures  his  employment, 
in  the  first  instance,  through  some  other  channel. 

Miss  Abbott  writes  of  the  Illinois  free  employment  offices 
as  follows :  — 

There  are  three  in  the  city  of  Chicago.  But  these  are  little  or 
no  help  to  the  immigrant.  The  superintendent  of  the  south-side 
office,  who  also  has  charge  of  the  inspection  of  private  agencies, 
says  the  State  agencies  cannot  place  these  groups  of  seasonal 
workers  because  they  have  no  fees  to  divide  with  contractors,  and 
because  the  funds  at  their  disposal  are  inadequate.  To  handle  this 
kind  of  work  successfully,  interpreters  are  required,  some  one  must 

1  American  Journal  of  Sociology,  November,  1908. 


89 

accompany  the  men  to  the  place  of  work,  and  often  the  railroad 
fare  must  be  advanced.  For  this,  the  free  employment  agencies 
have  no  funds,  they  say.1 

The  explanations  of  the  Boston  and  Illinois  offices  show 
that  the  possibilities  of  their  opportunity  have  not  been  ap- 
preciated. The  Boston  report  confines  its  view  to  the  immi- 
grant girl  in  domestic  service,  and  the  Illinois  explanations 
sound  helpless  and  lacking  in  administrative  view.  Large 
employers  are  beginning  to  understand  and  co-operate  with 
social  effort  to-day  to  a  degree  that  fifty  years  ago  would 
have  been  called  astounding.  When  a  large  trust  places  its 
patent  on  a  non-injurious  substitute  for  phosphorus  in  the 
hands  of  three  trustees,  and  by  their  advice  cancels  the 
patent  in  order  that  the  employees  of  rival  companies  may 
be  saved  from  diseases  resulting  from  use  of  phosphorus, 
has  not  the  time  come  for  the  free  employment  office  to  gather 
facts  and  take  them  to  the  large  employers  of  newly-arrived 
immigrant  labor,  and  to  win  their  co-operation  in  working 
out  the  problem  ?  A  large  social  service  should  not  be  left 
undone  either  because  an  interpreter  is  needed  to  carry  it 
out  or  because  a  railroad  fare  must  be  advanced.  If  a  pri- 
vate office  can  afford  to  advance  transportation  on  a  con- 
tractor's promise  to  refund,  a  State  office  should  be  able  to 
arrange  with  the  employer  to  secure  workers  in  a  fair  way. 
The  co-operation  of  the  reliable  leaders  of  the  different 
nationalities  must  also  be  secured.  The  arriving  immigrant 
naturally  turns  to  those  who  speak  his  language,  who  appear 
to  be  interested  in  him,  and  also  to  be  trusted  in  the  neigh- 
borhood. The  one  to-day  who  meets  these  three  conditions 
most  truly  is  the  small  banker,  and  yet  there  is  constant  re- 
port of  his  connection  with  the  evils  of  the  padrone  system, 
The  entry  of  the  public  office  in  this  special  field  will  not 
alone  correct  the  abuse.  The  enforcement  of  such  a  law  as 
accompanies  this  report,  embodying  as  it  does  suggestive 
criticisms  of  the  laws  of  other  States,  is  also  needed  to 
moralize  the  situation.  Yet,  as  Miss  Abbott  points  out, 
"good   laws    are   difficult   of   enforcement.      Clearly,    then. 

1  American  Journal  of  Sociology,  November.  1908. 


90 

because  of  the  helplessness  of  the  men,  because  of  the  inter- 
state character  of  the  work,  and  because  of  its  social  and 
industrial  importance  to  the  city  and  State  generally,  this 
class  of  workmen  should  be  handled  through  the  State  free 
employment  agencies."  The  commission  believes  that,  if 
the  public  free  employment  office  is  to  exist,  this  interstate, 
seasonal  work,  performed  in  such  large  degree  by  immigrant 
labor,  should  be  its  special  concern. 

Trade  Disputes. 

Interstate  work  is  sometimes  connected  with  sending  em- 
ployees to  "  break  a  strike  "  at  a  distance.  The  best  method 
we  have  found  for  maintaining  a  fair  attitude  in  such  in- 
stances is  that  adopted  by  the  labor  exchanges  of  Great 
Britain.  And  as  the  management  of  these  exchanges  is 
based  on  the  theory  which  we  consider  fundamental,  namely, 
of  winning  the  support  and  interest  of  citizens,  we  have 
studied  it  with  care,  although  of  necessity  at  a  distance. 

Throughout  Great  Britain  one  of  the  features  of  the  large 
system  of  labor  exchanges  already  inaugurated  is  an  advisory 
committee  of  citizens  in  the  community  served  by  the  office. 
This  committee  represents  employers,  labor  union  represent- 
atives and  other  leading  citizens,  and  is  designed  to  make  the 
work  of  the  exchange  known,  win  the  support  of  employers  and 
maintain  a  fair  attitude  in  labor  disputes.  The  rules  of 
the  office  provide  in  times  of  strike  or  lockout  that  a  state- 
ment may  be  filed  by  each  side  in  the  dispute,  renewed  each 
week;  and  an  applicant  at  the  exchange  may  read  the  state- 
ment from  each  side  and  decide  for  himself  whether  he  will 
or  will  not  apply  for  work.  The  holding  of  this  statement 
of  each  side  would  prevent  any  such  accusations  as  are  some- 
times made  that  the  worker  was  not  given  a  fair  view  of  the 
situation.  The  commission  would  recommend  that  this 
method  be  adopted  by  the  Massachusetts  offices. 

Casual  Labor. 
Another  field  of  usefulness  not  yet  entered  by  the  em- 
ployment exchanges  of  this  country  is  the  problem  of  casual 
labor.     Both  the  majority  and  minority  reports  of  the  Eng- 


91 

lish  Poor  Law  Commission  deserve  the  most  careful  study 
on  this  subject.  These  most  remarkable  reports  in  the  whole 
field  of  sociological  research  show  the  demoniacal  part  played 
by  the  system  of  casual  labor  in  the  manufacture  of  poverty, 
disease  and  crime. 

Among  them  privation  and  exposure,  and  the  insanitary  condi- 
tions of  their  dwellings,  lead  to  an  excessive  prevalence  of  diseases 
of  all  kinds.  It  is,  to  an  extent  quite  disproportionate  to  their 
actual  numbers,  they  who  fill  the  hospitals  and  infirmaries,  and  keep 
the  city's  death  rate  at  a  high  figure.  It  is  in  their  households, 
particularly,  that  the  infantile  death  rate  is  excessive;  that  the 
children  have  rickets;  and  that  an  altogether  premature  invalidity 
is  the  rule.  It  is  recognized,  in  short,  that  it  is  among  the  class 
of  the  under  employed  casual  laborers  —  constituting,  perhaps,  only 
a  tenth  of  the  whole  town  —  that  four-fifths  of  the  problems  of 
the  medical  officer  of  health  arise.  It  is  from  the  same  class  that 
is  directly  drawn  at  least  two-thirds  of  all  our  pauperism  other 
than  that  of  old  age,  sickness,  widowhood  and  orphanage.  It  is 
from  the  casual  labor  class  that  those  who  fall  upon  the  poor  law 
relief  works   or  charitable  funds   are  mostly   drawn.1 

There  is  little  doubt  that  to  regularize  casual  labor  would  do  more 
than  any  other  remedy  to  diminish  pauperism  of  the  worst  type. 
Take  away  casual  labor  and  drink,  and  you  can  shut  up  three- 
fourths  of  the  workhouses.2 

In  this  country  no  study  has  been  made  to  compare  with 
the  thoroughness  of  these  reports,  but  every  social  worker 
recognizes  the  picture,  and  knows  from  bitter  experience  the 
depressed  standard  of  living  when  the  man  works  irregularly. 
How  many  men  the  casual  workers  number,  what  they  cost  the 
community,  the  conditions  of  industry  that  make  casual  labor 
necessary  and  the  possible  remedies  are  unknown,  as  yet 
unthought  of.  When  the  cost  to  the  community  of  casual 
labor  is  understood  it  will  be  questioned  whether  it  is  not  a 
cost  that  should  be  carried  by  the  industry,  and  then  at  once 
organization  will  be  directed  to  lessen  that  cost.  Two  ob- 
jections to  decasualizing  labor  come  from  the  men  them- 
selves. The  insidious  poison  of  the  system  is  such  that  one 
type  of  man  comes  to  prefer  the  day  at  work  on  and  off 
and  to  live  according  to  that  standard.  The  other  objec- 
tion  from   the   man   of   finer   type   is   even   more    pathetic. 

1  Minority  report,  p.  1144.  :  Majority  report,  p.  224. 


92 

If  100  men  are  employed  half  time,  and  organization  of 
the  industry  should  produce  fifty  full-time  positions,  50 
men  would  be  without  work,  and  would  fear  the  results 
of  looking  for  work  in  another  field.  It  is  like  the  patient 
who  can  never  recover  without  an  operation,  but  lives  on 
miserably  rather  than  risk  the  surgeon's  skill.  This,  in 
America,  should  not  be  allowed  to  become  the  fear  that  with 
more  reason  it  is  in  England.  The  State  free  office,  through 
communication  with  distant  offices,  advisory  committees  of 
employers  and  labor  union  men  and  social  workers,  should 
study  how  the  regular  demands  of  the  business  may  be  met  on 
one  side,  and  distribute  the  information  of  need  of  workers 
in  other  offices  on  the  other.  The  social  curse  of  casual  labor 
is  its  power  for  making  men  unfit  for  regular  labor,  and 
another  generation  should  not  be  sacrificed  to  its  baleful 
influence.  Seasonal  labor  begins  to  be  more  hopeful  of 
solution  as  one  reads  the  calendar  of  busiest  months  made 
for  the  different  trades  in  the  minority  report  of  the  Eng- 
lish commission.  Formerly  the  cartoon  of  the  revolving 
doorway,  with  the  ice  man  going  in  and  the  coal  shoveller 
coming  out,  was  about  all  the  average  man  knew  of  slack 
and  busy  times  outside  the  trades  of  his  personal  observa- 
tion. 

There  is,  indeed,  no  month  in  the  year  in  which  some  trades  are 
not  usually  at  their  busiest;  and  no  month  in  the  year  in  which 
some  trades  are  not  usually  at  their  slackest.  Thus,  January  is 
the  busiest  of  all  months  at  the  docks  of  London  and  most  other 
ports,  and  one  of  the  busiest  for  coal  miners;  February  in  paper- 
making;  March  in  steel  smelting  and  textile  manufacture;  April 
in  brush  making  and  the  furnishing  trades;  May  in  engineering  and 
ship  building,  coach  making,  hat  making  and  leather  work;  May, 
June  and  July  in  all  the  ramifications  of  the  clothing  trades,  as 
well  as  among  mill  sawyers;  July  and  August  for  the  railway  serv- 
ice and  all  occupations  in  holiday  resorts,  as  well  as  for  carpenters 
and  coopers;  August  and  September  for  all  forms  of  agricultural 
harvesting;  September  for  plumbers  and  iron  miners;  October  in 
iron  and  steel  works;  November  for  printing  and  bookbinding,  for 
the  tobacco  trade,  the  tin-plate  manufacture  and  the  metal  trades 
generally;  whilst  in  December,  coal  mining,  the  very  extensive 
theatrical   industry,   the    post-office   service   and   the   gas   and   elec- 


93 

tricity  works  are  all  at  their  greatest  volume  of  employment.  On 
the  other  hand,  January  shows  iron  mining"  and  the  furnishing 
tiades  to  be  at  their  slackest;  in  February  (contrary  to  popular 
belief)  the  plumbers  have  the  most  unemployment  of  any  time 
of  the  year;  in  March  and  April  the  coopers;  in  May  and  June 
the  London  dock  laborers  and  the  coal  miners;  in  July  the  iron 
and  steel  and  tin-plate  workers;  in  August  the  paper  makers, 
printers,  bookbinders  and  tobacco  workers;  in  September  the  tex- 
tile operatives  and  various  metal  workers;  in  October  all  the 
clothing  trades  are  at  their  slackest;  in  November  ship  building  is, 
on  the  average,  at  its  minimum;  whilst  December  is  the  worst 
month  for  carpenters  and  engineers,  mill  sawyers  and  coach 
builders,  leather  workers  and  brushmakers.1 

In  our  country  of  different  temperatures  the  study  would 
have  to  be  made  for  each  State,  but  nowhere  to-day  has  the 
information  of  busy  and  slack  months  been  collected  and 
used.  To  dovetail  workers  from  one  industry  to  another, 
according  to  seasons  and  nature  of  work,  is  a  task  fitted  to 
challenge  American  ingenuity  and  idealism.  In  such  or- 
ganization the  employment  exchange  may  be  an  indispen- 
sable factor.  W.  H.  Beveridge,  director  of  the  large  scheme 
of  labor  exchanges  being  created  by  the  government  of  Great 
Britain,  in  writing  of  the  possibility  of  replacing  irregular 
and  insufficient  employment  by  regular  and  sufficient, 
states : — 

The  possibility  depends  upon  the  fact  that  separate  undertak- 
ings employing  similar  classes  of  labor,  though  they  may  be  to 
some  extent  affected  by  general  events  {e.g.,  by  seasons  or  trade 
changes),  so  as  all  to  grow  slack  or  all  to  grow  busy  at  the  same 
moment,  are  to  some  extent  also  affected  by  events  peculiar  to 
each,  so  that  one  grows  busy  while  another  grows  slack,  one  is 
dismissing  men  while  another  is  taking  them  on,  one  needs  10  men 
to-day  and  none  to-morrow,  while  another  needs  10  men  to-morrow 
and  none  to-day. 

If,  in  this  last  illustration,  the  two  employers  take  on  their  men 
independently  at  different  places,  the  two  days'  work  may  go  to 
two  distinct  sets  of  men,  —  20  in  all;  each  employer,  indeed,  will 
tend  to  have  a  distinct  following  in  constant  attendance  at  his 
gates.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  both  employers  take  their  men  from 
a  common  center  or  exchange,  both  days'  work  may  go  to  one  sot 
of  men,  —  20  men  idle  half  their  time  may  be  replaced  by  10  men 

1  English  Poor  Law  Commission,  minority  report,  p.  1184. 


94 

in  continuous  work.  Where  a  business  has  several  departments, 
fluctuations  in  the  different  branches  of  its  work  may  often  be  met 
with  little  or  no  irregularity  in  its  total  staff  by  sending  men  now  to 
one  department,  now  to  another.  The  same  thing  may  be  done 
for  separate  businesses  by  a  labor  exchange  supplying  each  and  all 
with  the  extra  men  they  on  occasion  require.  In  this  way  employ- 
ment may  for  each  individual  laborer  be  made  reasonably  continu- 
ous under  a  group  of  similar  employers  where  it  cannot  be  regular 
under  a  single  employer.  The  stagnant  reserve  of  under-employed 
labor  waiting  everywhere  blindly  on  the  demands  of  different  em- 
ployers may  be  replaced  by  a  smaller  body  of  men  mobile  from 
employer  to  employer  under  the  directions  of  an  exchange  in 
touch  with  them  all.  .  .  . 

This  is  the  whole  principle  of  the  labor  exchange.  It  is  neither 
new  nor  without  authority.  It  was,  after  prolonged  investigation, 
urged  by  Mr.  Charles  Booth  upon  the  Labor  Commission  in  1892 
as  the  one  remedy  for  the  evils  of  casual  riverside  employment.  Jt 
has,  in  accord  with  the  suggestions  then  made,  been  carried  out  by 
the  London  and  India  Docks  Company  so  far  as  regards  the  staff 
directly  employed  by  them,  with  the  result  of  increasing  the  pro- 
portion of  their  work  which  is  done  by  permanent  or  weekly,  as 
opposed  to  that  which  is  done  by  hourly  laborers,  from  20  per  cent, 
to  80  per  cent.  Unfortunately,  this  affects  less  than  a  quarter  of 
the  total  number  of  men  daily  employed  in  London  riverside  labor. 

All  that  is  new  here  is  the  emphasis  laid  on  the  general  character 
of  the  evil.  Every  trade  tends  to  be  chronically  overstocked  with 
labor  in  proportion  as  the  demands  of  separate  employers  are 
fluctuating,  and  in  so  far  as  machinery  for  bringing  together  those 
demands  and  for  mobilizing  the  labor  supply  is  absent  or  inade- 
quate. The  practical  application  of  the  principle  depends  very 
much  on  the  circumstances  of  different  trades.  In  some  the  prin- 
ciple is  already  applied  very  fully  in  the  system  of  trade  union 
registers.  In  others  something  is  done,  but  not  much.  In  the 
unorganized  and  unskilled  occupations  everything  remains  to  be 
done,  and  must  probably  be  done  by  deliberate  arrangement  be- 
tween employers  in  drawing  all  their  casual  labor  from  a  recog- 
nized center.  By  doing  this  they  'will  not  only  abolish,  as  they 
only  can  abolish,  a  source  of  standing  distress,  but  they  will  secure 
better  and  more  responsible  service.  From  the  streets  the  employer 
gets  a  man  who  has  perhaps  been  idle  and  ill-fed  for  several  days. 
From  an  exchange  he  may,  and  as  the  system  grows  will,  get  a 
man  who  has  just  left  another  job.  There  is  much  that  is  difficult 
in  this.  There  is  nothing  that  is  impracticable.  It  does  not  mean 
that  the  employer  loses  either  choice  or  control  of  his  staff  in  any 
way.  It  simply  means  that  he  chooses  till  he  is  suited  from  among 
men  sent  by  the  exchange,  not  from  among  those  gathered  at  the 


95 

street  corner  or  the  public  house.  For  the  reduction  of  unem- 
ployment labor  exchanges  are  more  needed  in  those  trades  in  which 
the  employer  can  now  "  get  as  many  men  as  he  wants  whenever  he 
wants  them  "  than  in  those  in  which  he  has  sometimes  to  wait. 

Labor  exchanges  cannot  relieve  existing  distress  or  of  themselves 
diminish  an  existing  over-supply  of  labor.  They  and  they  alone 
can  gradually  remove  one  of  the  principal  causes  in  the  formation 
of  distress  —  the  chronic  overstocking  of  the  labor  market  by  the 
disorganized  demand  of  many  employers;  or  by  such  special  plans 
as  individual  employers,  lacking  an  exchange,  often  feel  themselves 
compelled  to  adopt  —  of  giving  out  some  of  their  work  in  rotation, 
so  as  to  have  always  a  reserve  of  labor  for  emergencies  in  attend- 
ance at  their  own  gates.  No  remedy  other  than  organization  of 
the  labor  market  through  exchanges  will  serve  to  prevent  the  crea- 
tion of  casual  and  half-employed  labor.1 

Youth  and  Age. 

Another  special  class  of  workers  whose  skill  is  still  in  the 
future,  and  who  need  expert  advice  in  securing  employment, 
is  that  of  the  boys  and  girls  who  leave  school  at  the  earliest 
moment  allowed  by  law  and  drift  into  the  nearest  employ- 
ment. 

Experience  shows  that  leaving  school  is  one  of  the  most  dangerous 
epochs  for  the  character  development  of  youth.  Unless  the  school 
is  to  see  its  educative  work  now  undone,  it  must  co-operate  in  the 
task  of  at  once  directing  the  young-  into  an  orderly  career.  For 
as  a  training  agency  it  is  not  merely  the  duty  of  the  school  to  teach 
the  children  certain  knowledge;  it  must  qualify  them  for  their 
future  vocations;  it  must  take  an  interest  in  the  occupations  to 
which  the  scholars  turn,  and  show  this  interest  in  helping  them  to 
make  their  choice  by  advice  and  practical  help.  The  chief  value 
of  their  co-operation  will  be  to  submit  the  wishes  and  the  inclina- 
tions of  the  scholars  to  a  thoughtful  criticism,  but  to  this  is  nec- 
essary a  comprehensive  knowledge  of  the  labor  market,  which  can 
best  be  given  to  them  by  the  communal,  centralized  labor  bureaus. 
To  these  bureaus,  therefore,  the  schools  should  direct  their  scholars, 
emphasizing  betimes  the  importance  of  a  choice  of  occupation.2 

AVliether  it  will  be  best  in  the  future  to  have  the  voca- 
tional councils  unite  with  the  State  free  offices  and  maintain 

1  Labor  exchanii's,  \V.  II.  Beveridge. 

2  The  German  Workman,  p.  22.  Address  of  the  president  of  the  executive  committee  of 
Munich  Labor  Exchange  to  the  teachers  of  Munich. 


96 

a  separate  department  for  placing  the  youth  from  the  school, 
we  do  not  presume  to  decide,  but  it  is  a  possibility  to  be 
considered.  Our  own  unguided  school  graduates  are  em- 
ployees in  whom  the  State  should  take  the  greatest  interest, 
and  unless  arrangements  are  made  to  assist  them  to  appro- 
priate employment  through  some  other  channel,  the  Munich 
system  of  working  with  the  schools  to  this  end  should,  we 
believe,  be  adopted. 

Another  experiment  of  the  Munich  Labor  Exchange  is 
also  suggestive.  By  working  with  the  farmers  in  the  corn- 
growing  and  grazing  districts  the  bureau  finds  opportunities 
for  old  men  to  work  in  the  country.  We  realize  that  em- 
ployment for  the  less  able  workers  cannot  be  especially 
created,  but  when  in  the  cities,  which  naturally  attract  the 
largest  supply  of  labor,  the  labor  market  is  overstocked  at 
the  same  time  that  the  country  finds  its  productivity 
threatened  by  lack  of  labor,  the  task  of  adjustment  must  be 
undertaken.  This  is  not  the  type  of  work  calculated  to 
attract  the  ingenuity  of  the  private  employment  office,  and 
because  of  the  State  or  interstate  area  involved,  and  the 
peculiar  needs  of  the  employees,  it  becomes  one  of  the  sup- 
plemental tasks  appropriate  for  the  government  office. 

Summary  and  Recommendations. 

From  the  study  made  of  the  reports  of  the  State  employ- 
ment offices  of  the  country,  and  from  observations  of  the 
public  and  private  employment  offices  of  the  Commonwealth, 
the  commission  is  convinced  that  it  is  not  the  function  of 
the  public  office  to  compete  in  any  way  with  the  offices  of 
the  trades  unions  for  placing  unionized  skilled  workers. 
Neither,  we  believe,  should  the  public  office  attempt  to  com- 
pete with  the  private  office  in  placing  regular  domestic,  mer- 
cantile or  other  skilled  labor.  Experience  has  abundantly 
proved  that  in  these  fields  the  public  office  is  less  efficient 
than  the  private  office,  and  that  employees  prefer  to  pay  the 
fee  and  get  the  better  places  and  higher  wage  registered  at 
the  private  offices. 

We  also  beli     i  +hat  no  additional  offices  should  be  es- 


97 

tablished  in  Massachusetts  until  the  public  office  system  shall 
have  adapted  its.  work  to  meet  the  special  needs  of  the  com- 
munity, instead5*  of  duplicating  the  work  of  the  private 
agencies  in  filling  general  employment  demands.  The  func- 
tion of  the  public  office  should  be  worked  out  through  the 
experimental  stage  in  a  few  of  the  larger  cities  of  the  State 
before  extending  the  system  to  the  smaller  cities. 

It  is  clear  to  the  commission  that  the  present  system  of 
keeping  the  statistics  is  faulty,  but  the  wish  of  the  Director 
of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  to  secure  accurate  figures  of 
work  done  is  appreciated,  and  also'  the  difficulties.  The  in- 
vestigation has  also  shown  an  even  greater  need,  namely,  to 
free  the  office  from  the  loafer  who  takes  the  time  of  the 
staff  and  does  not  care  enough  about  obtaining  work  to  apply 
at  the  place  to  which  he  is  sent.  The  charge  of  25  cents, 
as  carried  out  in  the  Los  Angeles  office,  would  in  our  opinion 
assist  in  securing  not  only  more  accurate  knowledge  of 
workers  placed,  but  would  discourage  applications  from  those 
who  are  not  work-seekers. 

The  true  function  of  a  public  employment  office  is,  in 
the  mind  of  the  commission,  to  place  those  who  are  un- 
skilled, or  not  yet  skilled;  those  who  are  engaged  in  inter- 
state, seasonal  or  casual  employment ;  the  immigrant,  the 
youth  or  the  aged.       ■* 

To  develop  these  opportunities  of  an  employment  office 
varied  experience  and  special  training  are  necessary.  The 
present  Director  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  is  a  skillful 
administrator,  but  he  has  a  large  and  important  department 
which  must  take  most  of  his  time  and  thought,  and  should 
take  all  his  attention.  The  work  which  we  believe  a  State 
employment  office  should  attempt  is  pioneer  work,  and  is 
large  enough  and  sufficiently  important  to  justify  a  separate 
department.  We  have  been  much  impressed  by  the  affiliated 
unpaid  committees  of  representative  citizens  which  form  an 
integral  part  of  the  system  in  foreign  countries.  These 
committees  win  the  confidence  of  employers  and  employed, 
and  also  bring  that  variety  of  experience  and  acquaintance 
which  are,  we  believe,  necessary  to  the    i    \  o**  of  the  work 


98 

as  outlined.  Unpaid  committees  of  representative  men  and 
women  are  recognized  throughout  the  country  as  of  the 
highest  value  in  carrying  forward  large  plans  of  civic  serv- 
ice. From  the  first,  these  unpaid  citizens,  summoned  to  the 
service  of  the  Commonwealth,  have  placed  Massachusetts 
institutions  in  the  front  rank  of  the  institutions  of  the 
United  States.  We  would,  therefore,  earnestly  recommend 
the  Legislature  to  transfer  the  control  of  the  free  employ- 
ment offices  from  the  busy  office  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics 
to  that  of  an  unpaid  Board  of  five  trustees,  with  power  to 
employ  a  secretary.  This  Board  might  collect  the  experience 
of  a  large  employer  of  labor,  a  trades  unionist,  a  social  re- 
former, a  specialist  in  sociology  and  a  woman  of  experience 
in  its  personnel,  and  be  able  also  to  secure  the  co-operation 
of  an  advisory  local  committee  of  similar  representative 
standing  in  each  city  where  an  office  is  located.  This  commis- 
sion believes  the  work  of  such  a  Board  should  be  much  larger 
than  that  of  merely  maintaining  employment  offices.  The 
Board  should  also  be  given  the  following  allied  tasks :  — 

1.  To  study  the  whole  industrial  field  in  the  same  com- 
prehensive way  that  a  board  of  education  should  study  its 
field.  The  needs  of  employers  in  the  different  branches  of 
industry  should  be  learned,  and  the  abilities  and  adaptabili- 
ties of  workers  of  all  trades  and  nationalities.  Under-employ- 
ment  and  its  causes  should  be  studied  as  well  as  the  causes  of 
unemployment.  The  offices  maintained  by  the  Board  will 
furnish  invaluable  data  for  such  study,  but  it  must  be  supple- 
mented by  information  from  employers,  labor  unions,  social 
workers,  private  employment  offices,  public  employment  offices 
in  other  cities,  trade  exchanges  and  chambers  of  commerce, 
and  all  the  other  ways  that  initiative  and  social  statesmanship 
may  develop. 

2.  To  reach  the  newly-arrived  immigrants,  and  through 
study  of  their  needs  and  co-operation  with  employers  assist 
these  workers  to  find  the  best  places  in  industry  for  which 
they  are  fitted.  Whatever  workers  are  found  to  be  most 
easily  exploited  should  be  considered  the  special  clients  of 
the  public  office.     The  enforcement  of  the  law  regulating 


99 

the  private  office  and  the  activity  of  the  public  office  should 
together  protect  the  weak  and  ignorant. 

3.  To  secure  the  cc-cperation  of  labor  unions  and  em- 
ployers in  an  intelligent  effort  to  decrease  the  evils  of  casual 
labor  and  dovetail  the  work  of  employees  in  seasonal  trades. 
The  skill  in  organization  of  some  captains  in  industry  ap- 
plied to  this  problem  of  transportation  from  one  seasonal 
task  to  another  may  add  as  much  to  the  prosperity  of  the 
country  as  the  transportation  facilities  of  a  railway  to  an 
inaccessible  territory. 

4.  To  advise  with  the  school  boards,  vocational  councils 
and  other  directors  of  the  education  of  youth  in  order  that 
the  training  of  the  schools  may  be  adapted  to  the  needs  of 
the  industrial  world.  In  the  first  report  of  the  Massachu- 
setts State  Free  Employment  Offices  mention  is  made  of 
the  exceptional  opportunity  to  observe  the  handicap  of  the 
vouth  who  leaves  school  without  a  trade  well  learned,  and  the 
systematic  effort  made  to  tabulate  those  observations  for  the 
use  of  the  Industrial  Commission.  ~No  further  elaboration 
of  this  field  is  recorded  in  the  later  reports. 

5.  To  study  the  cycles  of  business  depression,  and  see  what 
can  be  done  to  mitigate  or  safely  alleviate  the  sufferings  of 
hard  years.  At  such  times  remedies  are  often  suggested 
that  are  economically  unsound  and  inimical  to  the  character 
and  interests  of  those  they  are  designed  to  serve.  The  ad- 
vice of  an  experienced  Board  would  be  of  great  value. 
Knowledge  of  a  shortage  of  labor  at  any  point  in  the  world 
should,  of  course,  be  distributed  at  that  time.  In  Germany 
the  labor  exchanges  send  word  to  the  mayors  of  all  munici- 
palities when  hard  times  are  foreshadowed,  and  ask  them 
to  keep  back  or  bring  forward  any  contemplated  public  works 
in  order  that  they  may  be  carried  on  under  regular  busi- 
ness management  in  the  periods  of  greatest  stress.  This 
should  not  be  confused  with  so-called  "  relief  works  for  un- 
employed persons,"  which  by  almost  general  consent  over  a 
wide  area  of  experiment  are  considered  expensive  failures. 

6.  To  become  expert  in  questions  of  workingmen'a  insur- 
ance and  unemployment  insurance,  in  order  to  advise  nianu- 


100 

facturers  and  others  anxious  to  promote  thrift  and  foresight 
among  employees. 

7.  It  should  also  be  the  duty  of  this  Board  to  teach  fore- 
sight to  employers,  to  publish  facts  about  community  meth- 
ods, that  create  a  large  demand  for  workers  one  year  only 
to  leave  them  idle  the  next.  For  instance,  looked  at  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  employee  in  the  Sheffield  arsenal,  the 
variations  in  government  contracts  from  the  British  war 
office  were  without  consideration.  In  1902  the  contracts 
amounted  to  £442,899;  in  1903,  £227,683;  in  1904,  £317,- 
700;  in  1905,  £910,928;  and  in  1906,  £60,381.1  In  terms 
of  men  this  meant  that  large  numbers  of  extra  men  had  to 
be  employed  and  trained  one  year,  who  would  be  without 
work  or  any  demand  for  their  skill  the  next. 

It  is  not  the  part  of  justice  to  consider  individual  thrift 
among  employees  as  the  only  thing  to  depend  on  to  prevent 
suffering  in  days  of  unemployment;  foresight  or  farseeing 
thrift  among  employers  is  also  a  matter  of  community  con- 
cern. 

While  the  report  of  this  commission  does  not  justify  the 
expense  of  the  State  free  employment  offices  as  at  present 
carried  on,  it  does  indicate  the  great  need  of  a  Board  of 
Employment,  and  its  belief  that  in  the  future  it  will  be 
difficult  to  justify  the  State  without  such  a  Board  or  depart- 
ment charged  with  the  duty  of  studying  the  needs  of  its 
industrial  workers.  A  Board  of  Employment  with  duties  as 
recommended  above  would  adapt  its  employment  office  to 
meet  the  real  needs  of  the  community.  The  Munich  Labor 
Bureau  is  a  remarkable  illustration  of  a  labor  exchange  in 
close  touch  with  its  community,  and  emphasizes  strongly  the 
comparatively  detached  position  of  the  Massachusetts  offices. 
The  Munich  Bureau,  conducted  by  a  representative  com- 
mittee of  citizens,  has  also  a  "  ladies'  committee."  The 
character  of  this  committee  is  indicated  by  this  one  of  recent 
date :  "  five  members  of  the  nobility,  the  daughter  of  a  chief 
forester,  the  daughter  of  an  officer,  a  doctor's  wife,  a  doctor's 


Report  on  Unemployed  to  the  Poor  Law  Commission,  Appendix,  Vol.  XIX. 


101 

widow,  the  wife  of  a  rabbi,  a  teacher,  and  a  lady  in  busi- 
ness." x  A  number  of  trade  guilds  have  their  registries  at 
the  Bureau.    In  1903  these  numbered  9. 

To  have  the  registries  of  labor  unions  or  trade  guilds  at 
the  public  office  is  advocated  by  those  students  who  believe 
"  if  the  exchanges  fail  to  attract  the  skilled  man  and  to 
supply  the  employer  with  the  best  as  well  as  the  ordinary 
run  of  his  workmen,  they  must  infallibly  degenerate  into 
registries  of  the  unemployable,  where  a  competent  man  will 
decline  to  be  seen."  2  This  program  places  the  public  office 
not  in  competition  but  in  co-operation  with  private  initia- 
tive. By  working  with  the  minister  of  war,  the  depart- 
ment of  reservists  and  employers  in  the  country,  the  Munich 
Bureau  has  done  the  valuable  work  referred  to  in  getting 
old  soldiers  and  other  aged  persons  into  employment  away 
from  the  city.  The  Bureau  has  also  specialized  on  finding 
employment  for  youth,  and  works  constantly  with  the  educa- 
tion board;  also,  the  Munich  Bureau  unites  all  the  labor 
bureaus  of  Bavaria  by  a  weekly  exchange  of  all  vacancies  and 
by  daily  telephonic  communication. 

Is  this  larger  task  worth  doing,  and  should  it  be  done 
now,  is  a  question  this  commission  has  considered  deeply. 
Mr.  Balfour  states  "  it  is  a  most  intolerable  thing  that  we 
should  permit  the  permanent  deterioration  of  those  who  are 
fit  for  really  good  work.  Putting  aside  all  considerations  of 
morals,  all  those  considerations  which  move  us  as  men  of 
feeling,  as  flesh  and  blood,  and  looking  at  it  with  the  hardest 
heart  and  the  most  calculating  eye,  is  it  not  very  poor 
economy  to  scrap  good  machinery  ?  "  8  Yet  this  scrapping 
of  good  machinery  goes  on,  a  horribly  costly  and  cruelly 
inhumane  system. 

A  backward  look  over  the  history  of  this  continent  shows 
one  characteristic  note  dominant  in  each  century.  Discover  v 
rings  through  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries;  priva- 
tion,  through   the  seventeenth;    independence,    in   the   eigh- 

1  Gorman  Workman,  p.  20. 

1  Cyril  Jackson,  in  Unemployment  and  Trade  Unions,  j> 

1  Discussion,  House  of  Commons,  April  9,  1910. 


102 

teenth;  and  expansion  throughout  the  nineteenth.  To-day 
it  does  not  require  the  gift  of  prophecy  to  see  that  conserva- 
tion will  dominate  the  thought  and  endeavor  of  the  twentieth 
century.  When  the  community  really  begins  to  grapple  with 
the  conservation  of  the  health  and  character  of  the  State, 
these  will  be  found  to  be  indissolubly  united  with  the  regular 
employment  of  its  citizens. 


APPENDIX. 


Appendix   A. 


Draft  of  an  Act  concerning  Private  Employment  Offices. 

Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  as  follows: 

Section  1.  The  word  rt  employment "  as  used  in  this  act 
shall  mean  and  include  every  contract  or  engagement  secured 
by  an  employee  with  an  employer  by-  which  the  employee  per- 
forms or  agrees  to  perform  labor  or  services  of  any  kind  what- 
ever for  wages,  salary  or  other  remuneration. 

The  phrase  "  employment  agent  "as  used  in  this  act  shall 
mean  and  include  all  persons  and  corporations  engaged  in  the 
business  of  assisting  persons  seeking  employment  to  obtain  the 
same,  or  of  assisting  employers  to  obtain  employees,  or  of  hiring, 
engaging  or  furnishing  employees  for  employers. 

The  phrase  "  employment  office "  as  used  in  this  act  shall 
mean  and  include  every  office  or  place  of  business  at  which  the 
business  of  an  employment  agent  shall  be  conducted  or  carried 
on. 

Section  2.  No  person,  partnership  or  corporation  shall  act 
as  an  employment  agent  in  this  commonwealth,  or  open,  conduct 
or  maintain  an  employment  office  therein,  unless  such  person, 
partnership  or  corporation  shall  be  duly  licensed  to  maintain 
an  employment  office  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  this  act : 
provided,  however,  that  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  not 
apply  to  employment  agents  who  do  not  receive  any  fee,  com- 
mission or  valuable  consideration  of  any  kind,  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  from  any  employer  or  any  employee  in  return  for 
services  rendered  or  assistance  furnished  by  such  agents;  and 
provided,  further,  that  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  not 
prevent  an  unlicensed  person  from  acting  as  manager,  assistant 
or  other  agent  of  any  duly  licensed  person,  partnership  or  cor- 
poration in  connection  with  the  business  carried  on  by  such 
licensee. 

Section  3.  The  state  board  of  industrial  inspection  appointed 
pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  chapter  of  the 

acts  of  the  year  nineteen  hundred  and  eleven  shall   appoint  a 


106 

supervisor  of  employment  offices  whose  term  of  office  shall  be 
three  years,  and  whose  salary  shall  be  such  sum,  not  in  excess 
of  thirty-five  hundred  dollars  per  annum,  as  shall  be  determined 
upon  by  said  board  with  the  consent  of  the  governor  and  coun- 
cil; and  may  remove  said  supervisor  at  any  time  by  a  vote  of 
three  members  of  said  board.  In  case  of  such  removal  or  in 
case  such  office  shall  become  vacant  from  any  other  cause  said 
board  shall  appoint  a  new  supervisor  for  the  full  term  of  three 
years.  Such  supervisor  shall  hold  no  other  public  office,  and 
shall  not  be  pecuniarily  interested  in  or  connected  with  any 
employment  office,  but  may  have  such  other  business  or  occupa- 
tion as  in  the  opinion  of  said  board  will  not  interfere  with  the 
performance  of  his  duties  as  such  supervisor. 

Section  4.  In  cities  having  a  population  of  more  than 
seventy-five  thousand  inhabitants  the  licenses  to  maintain  em- 
ployment offices  required  by  this  act  shall  be  granted  by  the 
supervisor  of  employment  offices.  In  other  cities  such  licenses 
shall  be  granted  by  the  mayor  and  aldermen,  and  in  towns  they 
shall  be  granted  by  the  board  of  selectmen. 

Section  5.  Licenses  granted  hereunder  shall  be  of  three  sorts, 
designated  as  class  one  licenses,  class  two  licenses  and  class  three 
licenses.  Any  applicant  for  a  license  whose  application  is 
granted  as  hereinafter  provided  may  elect  to  have  a  class  one 
license  or  a  class  two  license,  and  the  rules  hereafter  provided 
for  with  reference  to  fees  and  refunds  under  the  sort  of  license 
which  he  so  elects  to  have  shall  apply  to  the  conduct  of  his 
business;  but  under  either  form  of  license  he  may  act  as  em- 
ployment agent  with  reference  to  any  and  all  kinds  of  employers, 
employees  and  employments.  If  it  shall  be  stated  in  any  appli- 
cation for  a  license  that  the  applicant  intends  to  act  as  em- 
ployment agent  only  with  reference  to  the  employment  of 
teachers  and  of  other  employees  in  educational  institutions,  or 
with  reference  to  the  employment  of  trained  nurses,  or  with 
reference  to  the  employment  of  ministers,  or  if  it  is  stated  in 
such  application,  and  the  board  or  official  authorized  to  grant 
the  same  is  satisfied,  that  the  applicant  intends  to  act  as  employ- 
ment agent  only  with  reference  to  some  other  special  branch 
of  industry,  trade,  business  or  employment  distinctly  described 
in  said  application,  and  that  the  business  which  said  applicant 
proposes  to  conduct  cannot  be  carried  on  properly  under  the 
rules  applicable  to  class  one  licenses  or  class  two  licenses,  and 
if  such  application  shall  be  granted  as  hereinafter  provided,  said 


107 

applicant  shall  be  entitled  to  receive  a  class  three  license  if  he 
so  desires;  but  every  class  three  license  shall  set  forth  the  kind 
of  employment  to  which  the  business  of  the  licensee  is  to  be 
confined,  as  stated  in  the  application,  and  the  licensee  shall  not 
act  as  employment  agent  with  reference  to  any  kind  of  employ- 
ment except  as  so  stated. 

Section  6.  Every  applicant  for  a  license  shall  file  with  the 
official  or  board  authorized  to  grant  the  same  a  written  appli- 
cation stating  the  name  and  address  of  the  applicant,  the  kind 
of  license  desired,  the  street  and  number  of  the  building  in 
which  the  office  is  to  be  maintained,  the  name  of  the  person 
who  is  to  have  the  general  management  of  the  office,  the  name 
under  which  the  business  of  the  office  is  to  be  carried  on,  whether 
or  not  the  applicant  is  pecuniarily  interested  in  any  other  busi- 
ness or  businesses,  and,  if  so,  the  nature  of  such  business  or 
businesses,  and  where  they  are  carried  on.  Said  application  shall 
also  state  that  the  applicant  is  the  only  person  pecuniarily 
interested  in  the  business  to  be  carried  on  under  the  license, 
and  shall  be  signed  by  the  applicant  and  sworn  to  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace  or  notary  public.  If  the  applicant  is  a 
corporation  the  application  shall  also  state  the  names  and  ad- 
dresses of  the  officers  and  directors  of  said  corporation,  and 
shall  be  signed  and  sworn  to  by  the  president  and  treasurer 
thereof.  If  the  applicant  is  a  partnership  the  application  shall 
also  state  the  names  and  addresses  of  all  partners  therein,  and 
shall  be  signed  and  sworn  to  by  all  of  them.  If  a  class  three 
license  is  desired  the  application  shall  also  contain  such  addi- 
tional statements  as  are  required  by  section  five,  and  shall  be 
accompanied  by  a  copy  of  the  schedule  of  fees  which  the  appli- 
cant proposes  to  post  in  accordance  with  section  sixteen,  and 
of  the  form  of  contract  which  the  applicant  proposes  to  employ 
in  accordance  with  section  fifteen. 

Section  7.  Upon  the  filing  of  an  application  as  provided  in 
section  six  the  official  or  board  authorized  to  grant  the  license 
shall  cause  an  investigation  to  be  made  as  to  the  character  of 
the  applicant  or  applicants,  or  if  the  applicant  is  a  corporation, 
of  the  officers  thereof,  and  of  the  person  who  is  to  have  general 
management  of  the  business,  and  as  to  the  location  of  the  office. 
In  cities  in  which  the  licenses  hereunder  are  granted  by  the 
supervisor  of  employment  offices  the  investigation  required  by 
this  section  shall  be  made  by  an  inspector  of  employment  offices 
appointed   under   the   provisions   of   section   thirty-two.      Else- 


108 

where  such  investigation  shall  be  made  by  a  police  officer  or 
other  person  appointed  by  the  board  authorized  to  grant  the 
license.  The  application  may  be  rejected  if  the  official  or  board 
authorized  to  grant  the  license  shall  find  that  any  of  the  persons 
named  in  the  application  is  not  of  good  moral  character,  or 
that  any  of  said  persons  has  previously  been  connected  as  li- 
censee, manager  or  officer  with  an  employment  office  the  license 
to  maintain  which  has  been  revoked,  or  that  the  office  is  to  be 
located  upon  or  immediately  adjoining  any  premises  on  which 
intoxicating  liquors  are  sold  to  be  consumed  on  the  premises, 
or  that  there  is  any  other  good  and  sufficient  reason  within  the 
meaning  and  purpose  of  this  act  for  rejecting  said  application; 
and  if  the  application  is  for  a  class  three  license,  it  may  also  be 
rejected  if  in  the  opinion  of  said  board  or  official  the  schedule 
of  fees  filed  therewith  is  exorbitant,  or  the  form  of  contract 
submitted  therewith  is  unfair  or  oppressive,  or  if  the  said  board 
or  official  shall  find  that  the  statements  therein  as  required  by 
section  five  are  not  true:  provided,  however,  that  no  application 
shall  be  rejected  until  the  applicant  has  been  notified  in  writing 
of  the  reasons  for  such  rejection,  and  has  been  given  a  hearing 
if  he  requests  and  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  disprove  the  fact 
or  facts  upon  which  such  rejection  is  based.  Unless  the  appli- 
cation shall  be  rejected  for  one  or  more  of  the  causes  specified 
above,  it  shall  be  granted. 

Sectiox  8.  In  cities  having  a  population  of  more  than 
seventy-five  thousand  inhabitants  no  license  shall  be  issued  after 
application  therefor  has  been  granted  until  the  applicant  shall 
file  with  the  supervisor  of  employment  offices  a  bond  in  the 
penal  sum  of  one  thousand  dollars,  with  two  sufficient  sureties 
or  one  corporate  surety,  to  be  approved  by  said  supervisor. 
The  condition  of  the  bond  shall  be  such  that  said  applicant  in 
conducting  the  office  and  acting  as  employment  agent  shall 
comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  shall  pay  and  dis- 
charge all  obligations  and  liabilities  incurred  by  him  in  con- 
nection with  said  office  or  business.  Such  bonds  shall  be  made 
payable  to  the  commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  but  any  person 
having  a  claim  against  the  employment  agent  arising  out  of 
the  conduct  of  the  business  carried  on  under  the  license  may, 
with  the  consent  of  the  supervisor  of  employment  offices,  bring 
suit  in  his  own  name  upon  the  bond  filed  by  said  employment 
agent  against  the  principal  and  sureties  or  surety  therein  named, 
and  recover  the  amount  due  him. 


109 

Section  9.  After  an  application  for  a  license  has  been 
granted,  and  after  a  bond  has  been  filed  as  provided  in  section 
eight  if  one  is  required,  and  after  payment  of  the  license  fee 
hereinafter  provided  for,  a  license  shall  be  issued  to  the  appli- 
cant, in  which  shall  be  stated  the  name  or  names  of  the  licensee 
or  licensees,  the  location  of  the  office,  the  name  of  the  person 
who  is  to  have  the  general  management  of  the  business,  the  name 
under  which  the  business  is  to  be  carried  on,  and  the  number 
and  date  of  the  license.  If  the  licensee  is  a  corporation,  the 
names  of  the  president  and  treasurer  of  said  corporation  shall 
also  be  stated  in  the  license.  Each  license  shall  also  state 
whether  it  is  a  class  one  license  or  a  class  two  license  or  a  class 
three  license,  and  if  it  is  a  class  three  license  shall  set  forth 
the  particular  branch  of  trade,  industry,  business  or  employ- 
ment with  reference  to  which  the  licensee  is  authorized  to  act 
as  an  employment  agent. 

Section  10.  The  license  fee  to  be  paid  for  licenses  granted 
by  the  supervisor  of  employment  offices  shall  be  fifteen  dollars 
for  ft  class  one  license,  twenty-five  dollars  for  a  class  two  license 
and  fifty  dollars  for  a  class  three  license,  except  in  cities  having 
a  population  of  more  than  five  hundred  thousand  inhabitants, 
in  which  the  license  fee  shall  be  twenty-five  dollars  for  a  class 
one  license,  fifty  dollars  for  a  class  two  license  and  seventy-five 
dollars  for  a  class  three  license,  and  all  such  fees  shall  be  paid 
into  the  treasury  of  the  commonwealth.  In  other  cities  and 
towns  the  license  fee  to  be  paid  for  each  sort  of  license  shall 
be  such  sum,  not  less  than  five  dollars  and  not  more  than  twenty- 
five  dollars,  as  the  mayor  and  aldermen  of  each  city  and  the 
board  of  selectmen  of  each  town  shall  annually  determine,  and 
all  such  fees  shall  be  paid  to  the  treasurer  of  the  city  or  town 
in  which  the  license  is  granted. 

Section  11.  Every  license  shall  remain  in  force  until  the 
first  day  of  May  next  after  its  issue,  but  every  licensee  shall  be 
entitled  upon  paying  the  amount  of  the  license  fee,  and  filing 
a  new  bond,  if  one  is  required  by  section  eight,  on  or  before  the 
first  of  May  in  each  year,  to  have  a  new  license  for  the  ensuing 
year,  unless  the  board  or  official  authorized  to  grant  the  same 
shall  refuse  to  do  so  for  any  of  the  reasons  hereinafter  stated. 

Section  12.  If  the  board  or  official  which  granted  any  license 
shall  find  that  the  licensee  has  violated  any  of  the  provisions  of 
this  act,  or  has  acted  dishonestly  in  connection  with  his  business, 
or  has  improperly  attempted  to  conduct  his  business  in  such  a 


110 

manner  as  to  cause  frequent  vacancies  in  employment  for  the 
purpose  of  increasing  the  number  of  fees  to  be  earned  by  him, 
or  that  any  other  good  and  sufficient  reason  exists  within  the 
meaning  and  purpose  of  this  act,  said  board  or  official  may  re- 
voke said  license,  or  refuse  to  grant  a  new  license  to  the  licensee 
upon  the  termination  thereof;  but  in  either  case  no  such  action 
shall  be  taken  until  a  written  notice  has  been  sent  to  said  li- 
censee, specifying  the  charges  against  him,  and  he  has  been 
given  a  hearing  if  he  requests  and  a  reasonable  opportunity  to 
disprove  or  explain  said  charges. 

Section  13.  No  license  granted  under  the  terms  of  this  act 
shall  be  transferable,  except  that  the  licensee  may  at  any  time 
admit  a  partner  to  the  business  as  herein  provided.  No  licensee 
shall  permit  any  person  not  mentioned  in  the  license  to  become 
connected  with  the  business,  either  as  a  partner,  or  as  general 
manager,  or  as  president  or  treasurer  of  a  licensed  corporation, 
unless  the  written  consent  of  the  board  or  official  which  granted 
the  license  shall  first  be  obtained.  Such  consent  may  be  with- 
held for  any  reason  for  which  an  original  application  for  a  li- 
cense might  have  been  rejected,  if  the  person  in  question  had 
been  mentioned  therein.  If  such  consent  is  given,  the  name  or 
names  of  the  person  or  persons  so  becoming  connected  with  the 
office  shall  be  endorsed  upon  the  license,  and  if  such  license 
is  renewed,  shall  be  substituted  for  or  added  to  the  name  or 
names  of  the  person  or  persons  originally  mentioned  therein. 

Section  14.  No  licensee  shall  open,  conduct  or  maintain  an 
office  at  any  other  place  than  that  specified  in  the  license  without 
first  obtaining  the  written  consent  of  the  board  or  official  which 
granted  the  license.  Such  consent  may  be  withheld  for  any 
reason  for  which  an  original  application  might  have  been  re- 
jected if  such  place  had  been  mentioned  therein.  If  such  con- 
sent is  given,  it  shall  be  endorsed  upon  the  license,  and  if  such 
license  is  renewed,  such  other  place  shall  be  substituted  for  the 
place  originally  named  in  said  license.  So  long  as  any  licensee 
shall  continue  to  act  as  an  emplo}rment  agent  under  his  license, 
he  shall  maintain  and  keep  open  an  office  or  place  of  business, 
either  at  the  place  specified  in  the  license,  or  at  some  other  place 
authorized  as  above. 

Section  15.  Every  licensee  holding  a  class  three  license  shall 
file  with  the  board  or  official  which  granted  said  license  a  copy 
of  the  form  of  contract  into  which  said  licensee  proposes  to  enter 
with  persons  applying  to  said  licensee  for  employment,  and  shall 
not  act  as  employment  agent  for  any  person  seeking  employment 


Ill 

except  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  such  contract.  Said 
form  of  contract  may  he  changed  from  time  to  time,  but  no  such 
change  shall  be  acted  upon  until  a  new  copy  showing  such 
changes  has  been  filed  with  said  board  or  official,  and  if  said 
board  or  official  shall  find  that  such  contract  is  unfair  or  op- 
pressive, such  rinding  shall  be  sufficient  cause  for  the  revocation 
of  such  license,  as  provided  in  section  twelve. 

Section  16.  Every  licensee  hereunder  shall  post  in  a  con- 
spicuous place  in  every  room  used  for  business  purposes  in  the 
employment  office  conducted  by  him  a  schedule  showing  the 
amount  of  the  fees  to  be  charged  either  to  employees  or  em- 
ployers with  reference  to  all  kinds  of  employment  as  to  which 
such  licensee  proposes  to  act  as  employment  agent,  and  showing 
also  to  what  extent,  if  at  all,  such  fees  for  each  kind  of  employ- 
ment are  to  vary  with  the  rate  of  wages  received  by  the  em- 
ployee, or  with  the  duration  of  the  employment  obtained ;  and 
if  different  fees  are  to  be  charged  in  the  case  of  male  and  female 
employees,  the  rates  for  each  sex  shall  be  clearly  stated.  A  copy 
of  the  schedule  so  posted  shall  be  sent  to  the  board  or  official 
which  granted  the  license,  and  no  licensee  hereunder  shall  charge 
or  receive  from  an  employer  or  from  an  employee  in  return  for 
services  rendered  or  to  be  rendered  as  an  employment  agent 
any  fee,  commission,  gift  or  valuable  consideration  of  any  kind 
whatever,  except  a  fee  in  money  to  the  amount  stated  in  such 
schedule.  The  schedules  so  posted  may  be  changed  at  any  time 
provided  that  a  copy  of  such  changes  shall  be  sent  to  said  board 
or  official  before  such  changes  are  posted  or  acted  upon.  The 
schedules  posted  by  licensees  holding  class  one  or  class  two 
licenses  shall  conform  to  the  rules  provided  for  by  section  seven- 
teen, and  if  said  board  or  official  shall  find  that  the  fees  shown 
by  the  schedule  so  posted  by  a  licensee  holding  a  class  three  li- 
cense are  exorbitant,  such  finding  shall  be  sufficient  cause  for 
the  revocation  of  such  license,  as  provided  in  section  twelve. 

Section  17.  The  following  rules  shall  govern  the  fees  charged 
by  licensees  holding  class  one  licenses  and  class  two  licenses, 
except  so  far  as  said  rules  may  be  altered  or  added  to,  as  pro- 
vided in  section  eighteen. 

RULES  FOR  CLASS  ONE  LICENSES. 

1.  No  fee  shall  be  charged  to  any  employer  or  any  empL 
except  as  herein  expressly  stated. 

2.  Every  employer  who  applies  to  the  licensee  for  an  employee 
or  employees  may  be  charged  a  fee  for  each  employee  applied  for 


112 

at  the  time  of  such  application,  and  every  employee  who  applies 
to  the  licensee  for  employment  may .  be  charged  a  fee  for  the 
position  so  applied  for  at  the  time  when  said  employee  is  en- 
gaged by  an  employer  at  the  office  of  the  licensee  or  sent  from 
said  office  to  apply  for  employment  elsewhere,  but  no  such  fee, 
whether  charged  to  an  employer  or  an  employee,  shall  exceed 
the  following  amounts,  namely :  — 

In  the  case  of  female  employees :  if  the  employment  in  ques- 
tion is  to  last  less  than  two  weeks,  one-tenth  of  the  total  amount 
to  be  earned  by  the  employee  during  such  employment;  if  the 
employment  in  question  is  to  last  two  weeks  or  more,  one-fifth 
of  one  week's  wages  to  be  earned  by  the  employee  in  such  em- 
ployment, or  seventy-five  cents  if  such  wages  are  less  than  three 
dollars  and  seventy-five  cents  per  week. 

In  the  case  of  male  employees :  if  the  employment  in  question 
is  to  last  less  than  two  weeks,  one-eighth  of  the  total  amount  to 
be  earned  by  the  employee  in  such  employment;  if  the  employ- 
ment in  question  is  to  last  two  weeks  or  more,  one-fourth  of  one 
week's  wages  to  be  earned  by  the  employee  in  such  employment, 
or  one  dollar  if  such  wages  are  less  than  four  dollars  per  week. 

3.  If  an  employee  shall  not  obtain  and  accept  employment 
at  the  place  to  which  he  is  sent  to  apply  for  the  same,  or  after 
being  engaged  by  an  employer  shall  not  be  permitted  by  said 
employer  to  enter  upon  the  duties  of  the  employment  in  ques- 
tion, the  whole  amount  of  the  fee  paid  by  said  employee  shall 
be  refunded  upon  demand.  If  an  employer  shall  not  obtain  and 
engage  an  employee  within  six  days  after  the  payment  of  a  fee, 
or  if  an  employee  engaged  by  such  employer  shall  fail  to  enter 
upon  the  duties  of  the  employment  in  question,  the  whole  amount 
of  the  fee  paid  by  such  employer  shall  be  refunded  upon  demand. 

If  any  employment  with  reference  to  which  a  fee  has  been 
paid  by  the  employer  or  the  employee  or  both  shall  terminate 
from  any  cause  within  two  weeks  after  the  employee  has  entered 
upon  the  duties  of  such  employment,  the  total  amount  of  the 
fee  collected  and  retained  from  either  the  employer  or  the  em- 
ployee shall  not  exceed  in  the  case  of  female  employees  one- 
tenth  and  in  the  case  of  male  employees  one-eighth  of  the  wages 
of  the  employee  calculated  at  the  rate  agreed  upon  for  the  period 
during  which  said  employment  actually  continued,  and  the  ex- 
cess, if  any,  collected  from  either  the  employer  or  the  employee 
shall  be  refunded  upon  demand. 


113 


RULES    FOR    CLASS    TWO    LICENSES. 

1.  No  fee  shall  be  collected  from  any  employee  who  applies  to 
the  licensee  for  employment  until  said  employee  actually  enters 
upon  the  duties  of  the  employment  procured  by  him  in  conse- 
quence of  such  application,  and  no  such  fee  shall  exceed  the 
amount  of  one  week's  wages  to  be  earned  by  the  employee  in 
such  employment,  and  if  such  employment  shall  terminate  from 
any  cause  within  six  weeks  after  said  fee  becomes  payable  as 
aforesaid,  the  total  amount  of  such  fee  retained  and  collected 
shall  not  exceed  one-sixth  of  one  week's  wages  for  each  week 
and  a  corresponding  portion  of  one  week's  wages  for  each  frac- 
tion of  a  week  during  which  said  employment  actually  continued, 
and  the  excess,  if  any,  collected  from  such  employee  shall  be 
refunded  upon  demand. 

2.  Notwithstanding  the  foregoing  rule  a  licensee  holding  a 
class  two  license  may  elect  to  be  governed  by  the  rules  for  class 
one  licenses  as  to  any  particular  kind  or  kinds  of  employment : 
provided,  that  a  statement  of  said  kind  or  kinds  of  employment 
is  posted  in  connection  with  both  sets  of  rules  in  the  manner 
required  by  section  twenty-two,  so  as  to  show  clearly  what  kind 
or  kinds  of  employment  are  to  be  governed  by  each  set  of  rules, 
and  a  copy  of  such  statement  is  sent  to  the  board  or  official 
which  granted  the  license. 

Section  18.  In  the  year  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and 
thirteen  and  in  each  year  thereafter  the  state  board  of  indus- 
trial inspection  may  alter  or  add  to  the  rules  contained  in 
section  seventeen  as  applicable  to  cities  having  a  population  of 
more  than  seventy-five  thousand  inhabitants,  and  the  mayor 
and  aldermen  of  any  other  city  and  the  board  of  selectmen  of 
any  town  may  alter  or  add  to  said  rules  as  applicable  to  said  city 
or  town.  Notice  of  the  alterations  and  additions  to  be  made  in 
any  year  shall  be  sent  to  every  licensee  to  be  affected  thereby 
before  the  first  day  of  April  in  such  year,  and  a  hearing  thereon 
shall  he  given  at  a  time  and  place  stated  in  said  notice,  which 
time  shall  he  not  less  than  seven  days  after  the  Bending  of  such 
notice,  and  such  alterations  and  additions  shall  go  into  effeci 
on  the  first  day  of  May  next  after  their  adoption.  After  the 
first  day  of  May  in  each  year  no  further  alterations  or  additions 
shall  he  made  until  the  following  year,  except  that  on  petition 
of  one-half  of  all  the  licensees  to  he  affected  thereby  the  altera- 


114 

tions  or  additions  petitioned  for  may  be  made  to  take  effect  at 
any  time,  provided  that  notice  of  the  same  is  sent  to  all  licensees 
and  a  hearing  is  given  as  above  provided. 

Section  19.  Every  licensee  hereunder  shall  give  to  every  per- 
son from  whom  a  fee  is  received  for  services  rendered  or  assist- 
ance furnished  by  such  licensee  a  receipt  stating  the  name  of  the 
person  paying  the  fee,  the  amount  of  the  fee,  the  date  of  pay- 
ment, and  for  what  it  is  paid,  and  if  the  licensee  shall  furnish 
transportation  for  any  employee  to  his  place  of  employment,  the 
amount,  if  any,  collected  from  such  employee  to  cover  the  ex- 
pense of  such  transportation  shall  be  stated  in  such  receipt, 
separate  from  the  amount  of  the  fee  for  services.  Upon  the  back 
of  every  receipt  so  given  by  a  licensee  holding  a  class  one  license 
or  a  class  two  license  shall  be  printed  that  portion  of  the  rules 
provided  for  by  section  seventeen  which  is  applicable  to  the  re- 
funding of  the  fee  for  which  such  receipt  is  given.  Such  rules 
shall  be  printed  in  the  English  language,  or  in  case  the  person 
to  whom  such  receipt  is  given  does  not  understand  the  English 
language,  then  in  some  other  language  which  such  person  does 
understand. 

Section  20.  Every  licensee  hereunder  who  shall  send  any 
applicant  for  employment  to  apply  for  the  same  at  any  place 
outside  of  the  office  of  such  licensee  shall  give  to  such  applicant 
a  card  upon  which  shall  be  stated  the  name  of  the  applicant,  the 
name  and  address  of  the  person  to  whom  the  applicant  is  re- 
ferred, and  the  kind  of  employment  supposed  to  be  obtainable 
at  such  place;  and  if  any  applicant  for  employment  is  sent  to 
apply  for  the  same  at  any  place  outside  of  the  city  or  town  in 
which  the  office  of  the  licensee  is  situated,  the  card  to  be  given 
such  applicant  as  above  provided  shall  also  state  the  probable 
duration  of  the  employment,  the  rate  of  wages  actually  offered 
by  the  employer,  the  hours  of  labor  to  be  performed  by  the 
employee,  the  expense  of  transportation  to  such  place,  and  by 
whom  the  same  is  to  be  paid;  and  if  it  shall  appear  that  no 
employment  of  the  kind  applied  for  was  obtainable  at  such  place, 
and  that  the  licensee  or  his  agent  knew  or  ought  to  have  known 
that  such  was  the  fact,  or  made  any  false  statement  concerning 
the  probability  of  obtaining  employment  at  such  place,  or  con- 
cerning the  kind  and  terms  of  the  employment  there  obtainable, 
such  licensee  shall  pay  to  such  applicant  the  amount  expended  by 
him   for  transportation   in  going  to  and  from   such   place,   in 


115 

addition  to  any  refund  of  the  fee  paid  by  such  applicant  which 
may  be  otherwise  required. 

Section  21.  If  any  licensee  shall  hire  or  engage  any  em- 
ployee for  an  employer  he  shall  give  to  such  employee  a  written 
memorandum  of  the  terms  of  the  contract  under  which  he  is 
engaged,  stating  the  name  of  the  employee,  the  name  and  address 
of  the  employer,  the  nature  of  the  employment,  the  place  at 
which  the  services  are  to  be  performed,  the  wages  to  be  paid, 
the  hours  of  labor,  the  duration  of  the  employment,  and  the 
cost  of  transportation  to  the  place  of  employment,  and  by  whom 
the  same  is  to  be  paid ;  and  if  the  applicant  shall  not  be  permitted 
by  the  employer  to  enter  upon  the  duties  of  the  employment 
in  question,  or  if  he  shall  refuse  to  do  so  by  reason  of  any  false 
statement  made  by  the  licensee  or  his  agent  as  to  the  nature  or 
terms  of  such  employment,  the  licensee  shall  pay  to  such  appli- 
cant the  amount  expended  by  him  for  transportation  in  going 
to  and  from  such  place,  in  addition  to  any  refund  of  the  fee 
paid  by  such  applicant  which  may  be  otherwise  required. 

Section  22.  Every  licensee  shall  keep  his  license  conspicu- 
ously posted  in  the  principal  room  in  the  office  maintained  by 
him.  Every  licensee  shall  also  post  in  a  conspicuous  place  in 
every  room  of  his  office  used  for  the  transaction  of  business 
printed  copies  of  the  rules  provided  for  by  section  seventeen 
so  far  as  they  apply  to  the  business  of  the  licensee,  and  printed 
copies  of  sections  nineteen,  twenty  and  twenty-one  of  this  act. 
Said  rules  and  sections  shall  be  legibly  printed  in  a  manner 
satisfactory  to  the  board  or  official  which  granted  the  license, 
in  the  English  language  and  likewise  in  some  language  under- 
stood by  any  persons  commonly  doing  business  with  said  office 
who  'do  not  speak  English.  In  cities  having  a  population  of 
more  than  seventy-five  thousand  inhabitants  there  shall  be  added 
to  such  printed  matter  the  name  and  address  of  the  supervisor 
of  employment  offices,  together  with  a  statement  that  all  com- 
plaints in  regard  to  the  office  should  be  made  to  him. 

Section  23.  Every  licensee  shall  keep  a  record  in  which  ap- 
plications for  employment  received  from  employees  shall  be 
entered  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  received,  showing  the 
name  and  address  of  the  applicant,  the  kind  of  employment  de- 
sired and  the  date  of  the  application;  and  shall  also  keep  another 
record  in  which  all  applications  for  employees  received  from 
employers  shall  be  entered   in   the  order   in   which   they   are 


116 

received,  showing  the  name  and  address  of  the  applicant,  the 
number  of  employees  desired,  the  kind  of  employment  offered 
and  the  date  of  the  application.  Every  licensee  shall  also  enter, 
either  in  the  record  of  employees  opposite  the  name  of  each 
employee  or  in  some  separate  book  or  card  system  on  a  page, 
card  or  space  devoted  to  such  employee,  the  name  of  the  em- 
ployer by  whom  said  employee  is  engaged,  the  rate  of  wages 
agreed  upon,  the  amount  of  the  fee  paid  by  such  employee  and 
the  date  of  each  transaction  so  entered;  and  shall  also  enter, 
either  in  the  record  of  employers  opposite  the  name  of  each 
employer  or  in  some  separate  book  or  card  system  on  a  page, 
card  or  space  devoted  to  such  employer,  the  name  of  each  em- 
ployee engaged  by  such  employer,  the  rate  of  wages  agreed  upon, 
the  amount  of  the  fee  paid  by  such  employer  and  the  date  of 
each  transaction  so  entered.  Such  books  and  records  shall  be 
at  all  reasonable  times  open  to  the  inspection  of  the  licensing 
authorities  or  their  representatives  and  the  inspectors  provided 
for  by  section  thirty-two. 

Section  24.  The  board  or  official  authorized  to  grant  licenses 
hereunder  in  any  city  or  town  may  make  from  time  to  time  such 
further  rules  and  regulations  as  are  deemed  necessary  or  ex- 
pedient in  regard  to  the  form  of  the  records,  receipts,  cards, 
contracts,  printed  copies  and  records  required  by  sections  nine- 
teen to  twenty- three,  inclusive,  and  may,  if  it  seems  advisable, 
prepare  books,  forms  and  printed  copies  to  be  used  by  licensees 
under  said  sections,  and  furnish  the  same  to  licensees  at  cost. 

Section  25.  All  business  signs  displayed  by  any  licensee  here- 
under shall  contain  the  name  under  which  the  business  is  carried 
on  as  stated  in  the  license,  and  all  advertisements  by  means  of 
cards,  circulars  or  publications,  and  all  letter  heads,  receipt's  and 
other  blank  forms  used  by  the  licensee,  shall  contain  said  busi- 
ness name  and  the  address  of  the  office. 

Section  26.  Every  licensee  shall  if  possible  obtain  from 
every  applicant  for  employment  the  names  of  at  least  two  per- 
sons to  whom  the  person  desiring  to  employ  said  applicant  may 
refer  for  information  concerning  the  said  applicant.  The  names 
of  persons  obtained  as  references  shall  be  recorded,  and  if  any 
applicant  for  employment  shall  fail  to  furnish  such  references, 
that  fact  shall  be  recorded.  The  names  of  the  references  if 
given,  or  the  fact  that  no  references  have  been  obtained  if  such 
be  the  fact,  shall  be  communicated  to  every  employer  to  whom 
the  applicant  for  employment  is  recommended  or  referred  as 


117 

a  possible  employee.  All  written  communications  received  by 
the  licensee  concerning  the  character  and  qualifications  of  any 
applicant  for  employment  shall  be  kept  on  file  by  the  licensee, 
and  exhibited  on  request  to  any  employer  who  thinks  of  employ- 
ing said  applicant. 

Section  2?.  No  licensee  hereunder  and  no  agent  of  any  li- 
censee shall  publish  or  circulate  or  cause  to  be  published  or 
circulated  any  false  or  misleading  advertisement,  notice  or  state- 
ment in  any  newspaper  or  other  publication,  or  by  means  of 
cards  or  circulars ;  or  make  any  false  statement  or  representation 
in  connection  with  the  business  of  such  licensee  to  any  person 
seeking  employment  or  to  any  employer  seeking  an  employee; 
or  make  any  false  entry  or  statement  in  any  record  or  in  any 
receipt  or  other  document  used  in  the  business  of  such  licensee; 
or  pay,  rebate  or  remit  to  any  employer  or  any  agent  of  any 
employer  any  part  of  any  fee  paid  or  payable  to  such  licensee 
with  reference  to  the  employment  of  any  employee  by  such  em- 
ployer; or  pay  or  render  to  such  employer  or  agent  any  sum, 
or  valuable  consideration  of  any  kind,  in  connection  with  or 
in  return  for  the  employment  of  any  employee;  or  persuade, 
induce  or  procure,  or  attempt  to  persuade,  induce  or  procure, 
any  such  employer  or  agent  to  discharge  an  employee,  or  any 
employee  to  leave  his  employment;  or  knowingly  bring  about 
or  assist  in  the  employment  of  any  minor  in  violation  of  the 
laws  relating  to  the  employment  of  minors ;  or  knowingly  permit 
any  prostitute,  gambler,  intoxicated  person,  procurer  or  persnn 
of  bad  character  to  enter  or  remain  in  the  employment  office 
conducted  by  such  licensee. 

Section  28.  No  licensee  and  no  agent  of  any  licensee  shall 
knowingly  bring  about  or  assist  in  the  employment  of  any  child 
under  the  age  of  eighteen  years  for  appearance  upon  the  stage 
in  any  theatrical  entertainment,  exhibition  or  play,  or  in  any 
position  connected  with  any  such  entertainment,  exhibition  or 
play,  unless  a  parent  or  legal  guardian  of  such  child  shall  have 
notified  the  licensee  in  writing  that  he  consents  to  such  employ- 
ment. 

8  tiox  20.  If  an  employee  who  has  applied  for  employ- 
ment to  any  licensee  hereunder  Bhal]  agree  in  writing  with 
such  licensee  that  the  fee  to  become  due  rach  licensee  from  such 
employee  with  reference  t-»  Bneh  employment  as  he  may  obtain 
in  consequence  of  his  application  shall  be  deducted  from  the 
wages  earned  by  said   employee   in   said   employment,  and   paid 


118 

by  the  employer  to  the  licensee,  and  if  a  copy  of  said  agreement 
is  sent  to  the  employer  within  four  days  after  the  employee  has 
entered  upon  such  employment,  together  with  a  statement  of 
the  amount  of  the  fee  in  question,  said  agreement  shall  con- 
stitute a  valid  assignment  of  the  wages  of  said  employee  to  the 
extent  of  said  fee,  and  the  provisions  of  sections  one  hundred 
and  twenty-one  to  one  hundred  and  twenty-six  inclusive  of  chap- 
ter live  hundred  and  fourteen  of  the  acts  of  the  year  nineteen 
hundred  and  nine  and  acts  in  amendment  thereof  shall  not  apply 
to  such  transaction. 

Section  30.  Xo  person  shall  conceal  or  misrepresent  the 
amount  of  wages  paid  by  him  to  an  employee  or  received  by 
him  from  an  employer  for  the  purpose  of  reducing  the  amount 
of  any  fee  paid  to  a  licensee  hereunder  in  connection  with  the 
employment  in  which  such  wages  are  paid,  or  fraudulently  apply 
to  any  licensee  for  employment  or  for  an  employee  for  the  pur- 
pose of  assisting  another  person  to  obtain  the  employment  or 
employee  suggested  by  the  licensee  in  consequence  of  such  appli- 
cation without  the  payment  of  any  fee. 

Section  31.  Whoever  violates  any  of  the  provisions  of  sec- 
tions two,  thirteen  and  fourteen  of  this  act  shall  be  punished 
by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  two  hundred  dollars  for  each  offense, 
and  whoever  violates  any  of  the  other  provisions  of  this  act 
or  any  rules  adopted  hereunder  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of 
not  more  than  fifty  dollars  for  each  offense. 

Section  32.  The  state  board  of  industrial  inspection  shall 
appoint  upon  nomination  of  the  supervisor  of  employment 
offices  at  least  two  inspectors  of  employment  offices,  and  shall 
determine  the  salaries  and  terms  of  office  of  said  inspectors. 
Such  inspectors  shall  be  classified  and  appointed  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  chapter  nineteen  of  the  Eevised  Laws  and 
acts  in  amendment  thereof,  and  the  rules  adopted  thereunder. 
Such  inspectors  shall  make  all  investigations  as  to  the  character 
of  applicants  for  licenses  required  by  this  act  in  cities  having 
a  population  of  more  than  seventy-five  thousand  inhabitants, 
and  such  other  investigations  in  regard  to  licensees  or  applicants 
for  licenses  as  may  be  directed  by  the  supervisor  of  employment 
offices,  and  shall  regularly  inspect  the  offices  maintained  by  li- 
censees in  said  cities  as  often  and  in  such  manner  as  said  super- 
visor shall  direct:  and  shall  report  the  results  of  all  investiga- 
tions and  inspections  to  said  supervisor,  and  shall  take  such 
action  as  he  shall  direct  in  regard  to  alleged  or  suspected  vio- 


119 

lations  of  law  by  licensees  and  prosecutions  therefor.  It  shall  be 
the  duty  of  the  supervisor  of  employment  offices  to  direct  and 
superintend  the  work  of  the  inspectors  provided  for  by  this 
section  in  such  manner  as  will  in  his  opinion  best  secure  the 
enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  to  take  such  action 
as  he  considers  wise  in  regard  to  the  prosecution  of  licensees  who 
violate  the  provisions  of  this  act  and  the  revocation  of  licenses. 
Nothing  herein  shall  require  the  inspection  of  any  teachers' 
agency,  nurses'  agency  or  registry,  or  ministerial  agency,  except 
upon  complaint. 

Section  33.  Sections  twenty-three  to  twenty-eight  inclusive 
of  chapter  one  hundred  and  two  of  the  Revised  Laws  and  sec- 
tions one  hundred  and  eighty-six  to  one  hundred  and  eighty-nine 
inclusive  of  said  chapter,  so  far  as  they  apply  to  intelligence 
offices,  are  hereby  repealed. 

Section  34.  This  act  shall  take  effect  upon  its  passage,  ex- 
cept that  no  licenses  shall  be  actually  issued  hereunder  until 
the  first  day  of  May  in  the  year  nineteen  hundred  and  twelve, 
and  until  said  time  all  existing  employment  offices  and  employ- 
ment agents  in  the  commonwealth  shall  be  governed  by  the 
provisions  of  the  laws  repealed  by  section  thirty-three,  and  not 
by  this  act. 


120 


Appendix   B. 


Diuft  of  an  Act  concerning  State  Free  Employment 

Offices. 

Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  as  follows: 

Section  1.  During  the  year  nineteen  hundred  and  eleven  the 
governor  shall  appoint,  with  the  consent  of  the  council,  a  board 
of  five  persons,  to  be  known  as  the  State  Board  of  Employment. 
One  of  said  persons  shall  be  appointed  to  serve  until  the  thirty- 
first  day  of  December  in  the  year  nineteen  hundred  and  twelve, 
and  one  to  serve  until  the  thirty-first  day  of  December  in  each 
of  the  four  succeeding  years.  In  December  in  the  year  nineteen 
hundred  and  twelve,  and  each  year  thereafter,  the  governor  shall 
appoint,  with  the  consent  of  the  council,  one  member  of  said 
board  to  serve  for  the  term  of  five  years  from  the  first  day  of  the 
following  January.  If  any  vacancy  shall  occur  in  said  board 
by  the  death,  resignation  or  incapacity  of  a  member  the  gov- 
ernor shall  appoint,  with  the  consent  of  the  council,  a  new 
member  of  said  board  to  serve  for  the  unexpired  term  of  the 
member  so  dying,  resigning  or  becoming  incapacitated.  Said 
board  shall  serve  without  compensation. 

Section  2.  Said  board  shall  employ  a  secretary,  to  be  ap- 
pointed by  it  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  governor  and  council, 
and  to  receive  such  salary  as  may  be  determined  by  said  board 
with  the  approval  of  the  governor  and  council,  and  said  secretary 
may  be  removed  from  office  at  any  time  by  said  board.  It  shall 
be  the  duty  of  said  secretary  to  assist  said  board  in  the  exercise 
of  its  powers  and  the  discharge  of  its  duties  in  such  manner  as 
said  board  shall  direct. 

Section  3.  Said  board  shall  have  the  management  and  con- 
trol of  all  employment  offices  maintained  by  the  commonwealth 
as  hereinafter  provided,  and  shall  also  investigate  and  consider 
whether  it  is  possible  for  it,  through  said  employment  offices, 
by  conferences  with  employers,  by  intercommunication  between 
the  employment  offices  of  this  and  other  states,  by  the  collection 
and  distribution  of  statistics  and  information,  or  by  any  other 
means,  to  provide  a  more  abundant  and  better  supply  of  farm 


121 

labor  throughout  the  commonwealth;  to  reduce  the  extent  to 
which  casual  workers  without  regular  employment  are  engaged 
in  any  particular  branch  or  branches  of  industry ;  to  bring  about 
a  better  system  of  shifting  employees  from  one  industry  to 
another  in  accordance  with  the  seasonal  fluctuations  of  business 
in  the  various  branches  of  industry;  to  secure  more  speedy  and 
suitable  employment  for  immigrants;  to  assist  young  persons 
just  entering  the  field  of  employment  to  choose  and  obtain  such 
employment  as  will  give  them  the  best  available  opportunity 
for  future  development;  to  assist  aged  persons  to  obtain  special 
employment  suitable  to  their  infirmities;  to  induce  municipali- 
ties or  private  employers  employing  large  numbers  of  workers 
on  construction  work  to  plan  their  work  so  as  to  equalize  the 
total  demand  for  labor  from  year  to  year  as  far  as  is  possible; 
or  in  any  other  way  to  reduce  the  evils  and  economic  losses 
resulting  from  unemployment  and  misemployment,  and  bring 
about  a  more  scientific  application  of  the  whole  working  force 
of  the  community.  Said  board  shall  also  take  such  affirmative 
action  as  shall  seem  to  it  feasible  for  carrying  out  any  or  all 
of  the  above  purposes,  and  shall  annually,  on  or  before  the  third 
Wednesday  in  January,  submit  to  the  general  court  a  report  of 
the  work  of  said  board  and  the  operations  of  the  employment 
offices  under  its  charge  during  the  preceding  year,  and  shall 
make  therein  such  recommendations  as  it  shall  deem  proper. 
The  secretary  of  the  commonwealth  shall  cause  twenty-five  hun- 
dred copies  of  said  report  to  be  printed  in  each  year,  and  the 
expense  of  such  printing  shall  be  paid  for  out  of  the  sum  an- 
nually appropriated  by  the  general  court  for  the  contingent 
expenses  of  said  board. 

Section  4.  From  and  after  the  first  day  of  January  in  the 
war  nineteen  hundred  and  twelve,  the  three  employment  offices 
now  under  the  care  and  direction  of  the  director  of  the  bureau 
of  statistics  shall  be  maintained  under  the  care  and  direction 
of  said  board,  and  employment  offices  may  thereafter  be  estab- 
lished and  maintained  under  the  care  and  direction  of  -aid 
board  in  such  cities  as  it  may  select.  Said  board  may  also  dis- 
continue any  of  said  employment  offices  at  any  time.    The  buai- 

38  of  such  employment  offices  as  shall  be  maintained  under 
the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  to  receive  and  register 
applications  for  employment  and  applications  for  employees,  and 
to  assist  employees  to  obtain  employment  and  employers  i<>  ob- 
tain employees,  and  to  perform  such  other  functions  in  connec- 
tion with  the  work  of  said  board  as  it  may  direct. 


122 

Section  5.  Said  board  shall  appoint  a  superintendent  for 
each  of  the  offices  maintained  under  section  three,  who  shall, 
under  the  direction  of  said  board,  have  the  general  management 
of  said  office  and  perform  such  other  duties  in  connection  there- 
with as  said  board  ma}'  require.  Said  board  may  also  appoint 
an  assistant  superintendent  and  such  clerks  as  it  ma}'  deem 
necessary  for  the  proper  conduct  of  the  business  of  each  of  said 
employment  offices.  Such  superintendents,  assistant  superin- 
tendents and  such  clerks  as  may  be  appointed  to  act  as  chief 
clerks  or  assistant  superintendents  shall  receive  such  salary  as 
may  be  determined  by  said  board,  with  the  approval  of  the  gov- 
ernor and  council,  and  may  be  removed  from  office  at  any  time 
by  said  board.  All  such  superintendents,  assistant  superin- 
tendents and  clerks  shall  be  classified  and  appointed  in  accord- 
ance with  the  provisions  of  chapter  nineteen  of  the  Eevised  Laws, 
and  acts  in  amendment  thereof,  and  the  rules  adopted  there- 
under. 

Section  6.  Xo  fees  direct  or  indirect  shall  in  any  case  be 
taken  from  those  seeking  the  benefits  of  said  employment  offices, 
except  that  said  board  may  require  each  applicant  for  employ- 
ment to  pay  at  the  time  when  he  is  referred  to  any  place  of 
employment  a  fee  of  not  more  than  twenty-five  cents,  which 
fee  if  collected  shall  be  refunded  to  said  applicant  if  he  shall 
fail  to  obtain  employment  at  the  place  to  which  he  is  referred 
and  shall  demand  such  refund  within  such  reasonable  time  as 
may  be  fixed  by  said  board.  Any  superintendent  or  clerk  who 
directly  or  indirectly  charges  or  receives  any  fee  in  the  per- 
formance of  his  duties,  except  as  above,  shall  be  punished  by 
a  fine  of  not  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment 
in  jail  for  a  term  not  exceeding  thirty  days,  and  shall  be  dis- 
qualified from  holding  any  further  position  in  connection  with 
said  employment  offices.  All  fees  collected  by  any  employment 
office  hereunder  shall  be  accounted  for  by  the  superintendent 
of  said  office,  and  paid  over  as  often  as  said  board  shall  deter- 
mine to  the  treasury  of  the  commonwealth. 

SECTION  7.  In  registering  applications  for  employment  and 
for  employees  wanted  at  any  employment  office  maintained  under 
the  provisions  of  this  act  preference  shall  be  given  to  residents 
of  the  commonwealth. 

SECTION  8.  Each  superintendent  shall  make  to  said  board 
such  reports  of  applications  for  labor  or  employment  and  of 
other  details  of  the  work  of  his  office  as  said  board  may  require. 


123 

Said   board   shall   cause   reports   showing   the   business   of   the 
several   offices  to  be  prepared  at   regular  intervals   and   to   be 

! ranged  among  said  offices,  and  shall  supply  them  to  the  oe 
papers  and  to  citizens  upon  request,  and  the  several  superin- 
tendents shall  cause  such  reports  to  be  posted  in  a  conspicuous 
place  in  their  offices  so  that  they  may  be  open  to  public  inspec- 
tion. 

Section  9.  Said  board  is  hereby  authorized  to  furnish  weekly 
to  the  clerks  of  all  cities  and  towns  in  the  commonwealth  printed 
bulletins'  showing  the  demand  for  employment,  classified  by  oc- 
cupations, to  such  extent  as  may  be  practicable,  and  indicating 
the  city  or  town  in  which  the  employees  are  wanted.  Such  in- 
formation shall  be  based  upon  the  applications  for  employees 
made  at  the  employment  offices  under  the  jurisdiction  of  said 
board. 

Section  10.  Every  city  and  town  clerk  shall  post  the  lists 
received  as  aforesaid  in  one  or  more  conspicuous  places  in  the 
city  or  town.  A  city  or  town  clerk  who  fails  to  comply  with 
the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not 
exceeding  ten  dollars. 

Section  11.  The  furniture  and  fixtures  of  said  employment 
offices  shall  be  provided  by  the  sergeant-at-arms  in  the  manner 
and  under  the  restrictions  specified  in  section  four  of  chapter 
ten  of  the  Revised  Laws  for  buildings  or  parts  of  buildings  leased 
to  the  commonwealth.  The  location  of  each  office  established 
under  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  plainly  indicated  by  a 
proper  sign  or  signs. 

Secttox  12.  There  shall  be  allowed  and  paid  out  of  the 
treasury  of  the  commonwealth,  upon  the  approval  of  s*aid  board, 
for  salaries  and  other  contingent  expenses  in  connection  with 
the  work  of  said  board  and  the  establishment  and  maintenance 
of  the  employment  offices  herein  provided  for,  such  sum  as  the 
general  court  may  annually  appropriate  for  said  purposes. 

SECTION  13.  Sections  one  to  nine  inclusive  of  chapter  five 
hundred  and  fourteen  of  the  acts  of  the  year  nineteen  hundred 
anil  nine,  and  so  much  of  chapter  three  hundred  and  seventy- 
one  of  the  acts  of  the  year  nineteen  hundred  and  nine  afi 
to  the  bureau  of  statistics  or  the  director  thereof  any  pow 
or  duties  with  reference  to  free  employment  offices,  are  hereby  re- 
pealed, to  take  effect  on  the  first  day  of  January  in  the  year 
nineteen  hundred  and  twelve. 


124 


Appendix   C. 


Rules  relating  to  Intelligence  Offices  of  the  Licensing 
Board  for  the  City  of  Boston. 

Class  L 

1.  The  Licensing  Board  will,  upon  petition,  license  suitable 
persons  to  establish  and  keep  intelligence  offices  for  the  purpose 
of  obtaining  and  giving  information  concerning  places  of 
employment  for  employees  in  restaurants  and  hotels,  for  ac- 
countants, clerks,  draughtsmen,  stenographers,  typewriters,  book- 
keepers, cashiers,  employees  in  mercantile  or  other  business 
houses,  employees  in  warehouses,  porters,  night  watchmen,  rail- 
road employees,  gardeners,  persons  in  charge  of  farms,  dairymen, 
superintendents  of  country  estates,  masons,  plumbers,  painters, 
tailors,  plasterers,  blacksmiths,  carpenters,  machinists  and  other 
mechanics,  truckmen,  teamsters,  barbers,  engineers,  firemen  and 
compositors. 

Intelligence  office  keepers,  under  Class  I,  shall  be  entitled  to 
contract  in  writing  with  the  person  applying  for  business  em- 
ployment for  the  payment  by  the  employee  of  an  amount  not 
exceeding  one  week's  wages  in  the  employment  furnished;  ex- 
cept that,  if  the  applicant  for  employment  is  discharged  within 
six  weeks  from  the  time  of  entering  upon  such  employment,  the 
intelligence  office  keeper  shall  not  be  entitled  to  receive  from 
the  applicant  for  employment  more  than  one  day's  pay  for  each 
week  or  fraction  thereof  that  the  employee  has  remained  in  the 
employment  furnished;  and  further  provided,  that,  if  a  person 
is  given  employment  and  leaves  of  his  own  accord  within  three 
weeks  of  the  time  the  employment  was  furnished,  the  intelli- 
gence office  keeper  shall  refund  to  such  applicant,  within  four 
days  of  demand,  three-fifths  of  the  fee  charged.  The  fee  for 
a  license  under  Class  I  shall  be  $50.  (Revised  Laws,  chapter 
102,  sections  24,  186;  rule  of  the  Licensing  Board  to  be  enforced 
by  the  police.) 

2.  Every  licensed  intelligence  office  keeper  under  Class  I  shall 
post  his  license  and  two  copies  of  this  rule  in  conspicuous  places 
on  the  premises  occupied  by  him ;  and,  further,  shall  post  on  his 


125 

outside  door  a  sign  with  his  name  and  the  fact  that  lie  is  a 
licensed  intelligence  office  keeper  thereon,  (Rule  of  the  Licens- 
ing Board  to  be  enforced  by  the  police.) 

3.  Every  licensed  intelligence  office  keeper  under  Class  I  shall 
keep  a  record  of  the  names  and  addresses  of  applicants  placed 
in  positions,  also  a  record  of  the  names  and  addresses  of  the 
employers  with  whom  applicants  are  placed,  and  also  any  and 
all  sums  of  money  which  may  be  received  of  any  person  for  such 
services;  and  such  records  shall  at  all  times  be  open  to  the  in- 
spection of  any  one  of  the  Licensing  Board  or  any  person  by 
them  authorized.  (Eule  of  the  Licensing  Board  to  be  enforced 
by  the  police.) 

4.  Every  licensed  intelligence  office  keeper  under  Class  I  who 
directs  any  applicant  for  employment  to  an  employer  shall,  if 
it  shall  appear  that  no  situation  of  the  kind  applied  for  was 
vacant  at  the  place  to  which  such  applicant  was  directed,  or 
if  the  employment  furnished  was  not  as  specified  by  the  li- 
censee, and  the  person  applying  for  employment  does  not  accept 
the  employment,  refund  to  such  applicant  within  four  days  of 
demand  any  sums  paid  by  him  for  transportation  in  going  to 
and  returning  from  said  employer,  and  all  fees  paid  by  the 
applicant. 

5.  Applications  for  all  licenses  issued  pursuant  to  this  rule 
shall  be  filed  at  the  office  of  the  Licensing  Board  prior  to  the 
first  day  of  May,  and  shall  be  examined  and  reported  on  by 
the  officers  detailed  to  the  intelligence  office  service.  Such  li- 
censes may  be  granted  during  the  month  of  April,  to  take  effect 
the  first  day  of  May  next  ensuing.  Such  licenses  shall  continue 
in  force  until  May  first  following,  unless  sooner  revoked.  (Re- 
vised Laws,  chapter  102,  sections  186,  187;  rule  of  the  Licensing 
Board  to  be  enforced  by  the  police.) 

All  persons  shall  state  in  their  applications  the  place  they 
propose  to  occupy,  and  no  such  license  shall  protect  the  holder 
thereof  in  a  building  or  place  other  than  that  designated  in  the 
license,  unless  consent  to  the  removal  is  granted  by  the  Licensing 
Board.  (Revised  Laws,  chapter  102,  section  188;  rule  of  the 
Licensing  Board  to  be  enforced  by  the  police.) 

6.  All  licenses  granted  to  keepers  of  intelligence  offices  shall 
be  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  Licensing  Board,  and  shall  be 
recorded  by  the  secretary  of  the  Licensing  Board  in  a  book  1 
for  that  purpose  before  being  delivered  to  the  Licens         Such  li- 
cense shall  set  forth  the  name  of  the  person  licensed,  the  nature 


126 

of  the  business  and  the  building  or  place  in  which  it  is  to  be 
carried  on.     (Revised  Laws,  chapter  102,  section  186.) 

7.  Whoever,  as  proprietor  or  keeper  of  an  intelligence  or  em- 
ployment office,  either  personally  or  through  an  agent  or  em- 
ployee sends  any  woman  or  girl  to  enter  (as  an  inmate  or 
servant)  a  house  of  ill-fame  or  other  place  resorted  to  for  the 
purpose  of  prostitution,  the  character  of  which  on  reasonable 
inquiry  could  have  been  ascertained  by  him,  shall  for  each  of- 
fence be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  $50  nor  more  than 
$200.      (Revised  Laws,  chapter  212,  section  8.) 

8.  Whoever,  without  a  license  therefor,  establishes  or  keeps 
an  intelligence  office  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  or  giving  in- 
formation concerning  places  of  employment  for  domestic  serv- 
ants or  other  laborers,  except  seamen,  or  for  procuring  or  giving 
information  concerning  such  persons  for  or  to  employers,  or  for 
procuring  or  giving  information  concerning  employment  in  busi- 
ness, shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  $10  for  each  day  such  office 
is  so  kept.     (Revised  Laws,  chapter  102,  section  23.) 

9.  All  licenses  provided  for  by  this  rule  may  be  revoked  by 
the  Licensing  Board  at  pleasure.  (Revised  Laws,  chapter  102, 
section  24.) 

Such  licenses  will  be  revoked  for  violation  of  any  statute  or 
rule  of  the  Licensing  Board  relating  to  the  business  of  the  li- 
censees, or  for  any  other  cause  deemed  sufficient  by  the  Licensing 
Board.  (Rule  of  the  Licensing  Board  to  be  enforced  by  the 
police.) 

Make  any  complaints  to  any  police  officer,  who  will  direct  you 
to  the  proper  authorities. 

Class  II. 

1.  The  Licensing  Board  will,  upon  petition,  license  suitable 
persons  to  establish  and  keep  intelligence  offices  for  the  purpose 
of  obtaining  and  giving  information  concerning  places  of  em- 
ployment for  coachmen,  grooms,  hostlers,  longshoremen,  lum- 
bermen, seamstresses,  cooks,  scrubwomen,  laundresses,  nurses 
(except  professional  nurses),  chambermaids,  maids  of  all  work, 
domestics,  servants,  agricultural  or  other  laborers  (except  sea- 
men), or  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  or  giving  information 
concerning  such  person  for  or  to  employers. 

The  fee  for  a  license  under  Class  II  shall  be  $25.  (Revised 
Laws,  chapter  L02,  section  186;  rub  of  the  Licensing  Board 
to  lie  enforced  by  the  police.) 


127 

Intelligence  office  keepers  under  Class  II  shall  be  entitled  to 
receive  from  an  employer,  at  the  time  of  application:  — 

For  a  female  employee  whose  wages   are  to  -be  less  than  $4   per 

week,  75  cents. 
For   a   male   employee   whose   wages   are    to   be   less   than    $4    per 

week,  $1. 
For   a  female   employee  whose   wages   are   to   be  $4   or  more   per 

week,  20  per  cent,  of  the  first  week's  wages. 
For  a  male  employee  whose  wages  are  to  be  $4  or  more  per  week, 

25  per  cent,  of  the  first  week's  wages. 

Provided  that  this  fee  shall  be  returned  within  four  days  of 
demand,  if  no  employee  is  furnished  within  six  days  of  pay- 
ment; and  further  provided  that  if  an  employee  furnished  fails 
to  remain  ten  days  in  the  situation  a  new  employee  shall  be 
furnished,  or  two-fifths  of  this  fee  shall  be  returned  within  four 
days  of  demand.1 

When  an  applicant  for  employment  is  sent  from  the  intelli- 
gence office  to  an  employer,  intelligence  office  keepers  under 
Class  II  shall  be  entitled  to  receive,  at  the  time  the  applicant 
for  employment  is  directed  to  an  employer :  — 

From  a  female  applicant  for  employment  whose  wages  are  to  be 

less  than  $4  per  week,  75  cents. 
From  a  male  applicant  for  employment  whose  wages  are  to  be  less 

than  $4  per  week,  $1. 
From  a  female  applicant  for  employment  whose  wages  are  to  be  $4 

or  more  per  week,  20  per  cent,  of  the  first  week's  wages. 
From  a  male  applicant  for  employment  whose  wages  are  to  be  $4 

or  more  per  week,  25  per  cent,  of  the  first  week's  wages. 

Provided  that  this  fee  shall  be  refunded  within  four  days  of 
demand  or  another  situation  furnished  if  the  applicant  does  not 
enter  the  employ  of  the  person  to  whom  he  or  she  was  directed ; 
and  further  provided  that  two-fifths  of  any  fee  paid  by  any 
applicant  for  employment  shall  he  refunded  within  four  days 
of  demand  or  another  situation  furnished  if  the  employee  is  dis- 
charged within  ten  days  of  emplo}Tnent;  and  further  provided 
that  the  fee  and  any  sums  paid  by  the  applicant  for  transporta- 
tion in  going  to  and   returning  from   such   employer  anal]  be 


1  The  intelligence  office  keeper  is  not  required  to  return  a  fee  to  the  employer  in  any  case 
if  the  employer  fails  to  keep  any  agreement  which  he  has  made  in  relation  to  the  hiring  or 
employment. 


128 

refunded  within  four  days  of  demand  if  no  situation  of  the  kind 
applied  for  was  vacant  at  the  place  to  which  the  applicant  was 
directed,  or  if  the  employment  furnished  was  not  as  specified 
by  the  licensee. 

When  an  applicant  for  employment  is  hired  at  the  intelligence 
office,  intelligence  office  keepers  under  Class  II  shall  be  entitled 
to  receive  at  the  time  the  agreement  for  services  is  made  between 
the  applicant  for  employment  and  the  employer :  — 

From  a  female  applicant  for  employment  whose  wages  are  to  be 

less  than  $4  per  week,  75  cents. 
From  a  male  applicant  for  employment  whose  wages  are  to  be  less 

than  $4  per  week,  $1. 
From  a  female  applicant  for  employment  whose  wages  are  to  be 

$4  or  more  per  week,  20  per  cent,  of  the  first  week's  wages. 
From  a  male  applicant  for  employment  whose  wages  are  to  be  $4 

or  more  per  week,  25  per  cent,  of  the  first  week's  wages. 

Provided  that  two-fifths  of  any  fee  paid  by  an  applicant  for  em- 
ployment shall  be  refunded  within  four  days  of  demand,  or 
another  situation  furnished  if  the  employee  is  discharged  within 
ten  days  of  employment.1 

2.  Every  licensed  intelligence  office  keeper  under  Class  II  is 
required  to  give  each  person  from  whom  he  accepts  a  fee  a  re- 
ceipt stating  the  amount  so  paid,  the  character  of  the  situation 
or  employment  applied  for,  the  name  of  the  applicant,  and  the 
conditions  under  which  the  fee  or  any  part  of  it  must  be  re- 
turned. 

3.  Every  licensed  intelligence  office  keeper  under  Class  II 
shall  post  his  license  and  two  copies  of  this  rule  in  conspicuous 
places  on  the  premises  occupied  by  him,  and,  further,  shall  post 
on  his  outside  door  a  sign  with  his  name  and  the  fact  that  he 
is  a  licensed  intelligence  office  keeper  thereon.  (Rule  of  the 
Licensing  Board  to  be  enforced  by  the  police.) 

4.  Every  licensed  intelligence  office  keeper  under  Class  II 
shall  keep  a  book,  of  pattern  to  be  approved  by  the  Licensing 
Board,  in  which  shall  be  entered  at  the  time  of  application  the 
name  and  residence  of  any  person  who  may  apply  for  employ- 
ment, the  name  and  residence  of  any  person  who  may  make 
application  to  be  supplied  with  an  employee,  the  character  of 

1  The  intelligence  office  keeper  is  not  required  to  return  a  fee  to  the  applicant  for  employ- 
ment in  any  case  if  the  applicant  fails  to  keep  any  agreement  which  he  has  made  in  relation 
to  the  hiring  or  employment. 


129 

the  situation  or  employment  demanded  or  furnished,  and  also 
any  and  all  sums  of  money  which  may  be  received  of  any  person 
for  such  services;  and  such  books  shall  at  all  times  be  open  to 
the  inspection  of  any  one  of  the  Licensing  Board  or  any  person 
by  them  authorized.  (Rule  of  the  Licensing  Board  to  be  en- 
forced by  the  police.) 

5.  Applications  for  all  licenses  issued  pursuant  to  this  rule 
shall  be  filed  at  the  office  of  the  Licensing  Board  prior  to  the 
first  day  of  May,  and  shall  be  examined  and  reported  on  by  the 
officer  detailed  to  the  intelligence  office  service. 

Such  licenses  may  be  granted  during  the  month  of  April,  to 
take  effect  on  the  first  day  of  May  next  ensuing.  Such  licenses 
shall  continue  in  force  until  May  first  next  succeeding  their  date, 
unless  sooner  revoked.  (Revised  Laws,  chapter  102,  sections 
186,  187;  rule  of  the  Licensing  Board  to  be  enforced  by  the 
police.) 

All  persons  shall  state  in  their  applications  the  place  they 
propose  to  occupy,  and  no  such  license  shall  be  valid  to  protect 
the  holder  thereof  in  a  building  or  place  other  than  that  desig- 
nated in  the  license,  unless  consent  to  the  removal  is  granted  by 
the  Licensing  Board.  (Revised  Laws,  chapter  102,  section  188; 
rule  of  the  Licensing  Board  to  be  enforced  by  the  police.) 

6.  All  licenses  granted  to  keepers  of  intelligence  offices  will 
be  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  Licensing  Board,  and  will  be 
recorded  by  the  secretary  of  the  Licensing  Board  in  a  book  kept 
for  that  purpose  before  being  delivered  to  the  licensee.  Such 
license  shall  set  forth  the  name  of  the  person  licensed,  the  nature 
of  the  business  and  the  building  or  place  in  which  it  is  to  be 
carried  on.     (Revised  Laws,  chapter  102,  section  186.) 

7.  Whoever,  as  proprietor  or  keeper  of  an  intelligence  or  em- 
ployment office  either  personally  or  through  an  agent  or  employee, 
sends  any  woman  or* girl  to  enter  (as  inmate  or  servant)  a  house 
of  ill-fame  or  other  place  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  prosti- 
tution, the  character  of  which  on  reasonable  inquiry  could  have 
been  ascertained  by  him,  shall  for  each  offence  be  punished  by 
a  fine  of  not  less  than  $50  nor  more  than  $200.  (Revised  Laws, 
chapter  212,  section  8.) 

8.  Whoever,  without  a  license  therefor,  establishes  or  keeps 
an  intelligence  office  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  or  giving 
information  concerning  places  of  employment  for  domestics, 
Bervants  or  other  laborers,  except  Beamen,  or  for  procuring  or 
giving  information  concerning  Buch  persons  for  or  to  employ* 


130 

or  for  procuring  or  giving  information  concerning  employment 
in  business,  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  $10  for  each  day  such 
office  is  so  kept.     (Revised  Laws,  chapter  102,  section  23.) 

9.  All  licenses  provided  for  by  this  rule  may  be  revoked  by 
the  Licensing  Board  at  pleasure.  (Revised  Laws,  chapter  102, 
section  24.) 

Such  licenses  will  be  revoked  for  violation  of  any  statute  or 
rule  of  the  Licensing  Board  relating  to  the  business  of  the  li- 
censees, or  for  any  other  cause  deemed  sufficient  by  the  Licensing 
Board.  (Rule  of  the  Licensing  Board  to  be  enforced  by  the 
police.) 

Make  any  complaint  to  any  police  officer,  who  will  direct  you 
to  the  proper  authorities. 


TOPICAL  SUMMARY  OF    THE  LAWS  OF  OTHER  STATES. 


Officers  subject  to  Regulation. 

License  required. 

Manner  of  granting  License. 

Provisions 

as  to 

Form  of 

License. 

License  Fee. 

Duration  of 
License. 

STATES. 

Particular  Kinds 
only. 

All  Kinds 
generally. 

Exceptions  as  to  Kind. 

Exceptions  as  to 
Locality. 

Regula- 
tion de- 
pendent 
on  a  Fee. 

From  State  Authority 

(Bureau  of 

Labor  Statistics  or 

Similar  Body). 

From 
Local  Au- 
thority. 

Formal  Ap- 
plication 
(Name, 
Address, 
etc.). 

Affidavits 

of 
Character. 

Bond. 

Power  to 
refuse. 

Hearing 
before 
Refusal. 

Appeal 

from 
Refusal. 

Single  Fee. 

Annual  Fee. 

■rjn_           Limited 
limited.       o^,*^ 

California,  . 

" 

Yes. 

- 

- 

Yes. 

Yes. 

- 

Yes. 

" 

" 

- 

- 

- 

Yes. 

" 

Cities  of  1st  and  2d  class,  $50. 
Cities  of  3d  class,  $25. 
Elsewhere,  $6. 

1 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Colorado,    . 

- 

Yes. 

Charitable  organizations. 

■ 

Yes. 

Yes. 

■ 

" 

" 

$1,000 

~ 

■ 

- 

Yes. 

~ 

Cities  of  25,000  population,  $50. 
Cities  of  5,000  population,  $25. 
Elsewhere,  $10. 

Yes. 

" 

Connecticut, 

- 

Yes. 

Teachers*  agencies. 

- 

Yes. 

Yes. 

- 

- 

- 

$509 

- 

- 

- 

Yes. 

- 

First  year,  $10;  afterwards,  $5. 

Yes. 

- 

District  of  Columbia, 

~ 

Yes. 

- 

- 

Yes. 

Commissioners  of  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia. 

- 

Yes. 

" 

$1,000 

Absolute. 

Yes. 

- 

Yes. 

" 

$25. 

Yes. 

- 

Idaho. 

- 

Yes. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Yes. 

- 

- 

$5,000 

Absolute. 

- 

- 

Yes. 

- 

_ 

Yes. 

- 

Illinois, 

~ 

Yes. 

Charitable  institutions. 

- 

Yes. 

Yes. 

" 

Yes. 

Yes. 

$500 

For  cause. 

Yes. 

Certiorari. 

Yes. 

" 

Cities  of  50,000  population,  $50. 
Cities  under  50,000  population,  $25. 

" 

Yes. 

Indiana, 

- 

Yes. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Yes. 

- 

- 

- 

$1,000 

- 

- 

- 

Yes. 

S25 

- 

Yes. 

- 

Iowa 

Officers  promising  to 
procure  employ- 
ment. 

_ 

- 

~ 

~ 

Yes. 

_ 

- 

" 

~ 

~ 

" 

" 

■ 

" 

" 

_ 

~ 

" 

Louisiana,  . 

- 

Yes. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Yes. 

- 

- 

$5,000 

Absolute. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Yes. 

-      ' 

Maine, 

- 

Yes. 

Seamen's  agencies. 

- 

Yes. 

- 

Yes. 

- 

- 

$500 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

$20. 

- 

Yes. 

Minnesota, 

- 

Yes. 

Offices  securing  clerical  positions. 

- 

Yes. 

- 

Yes. 

- 

- 

$2,000 

- 

- 

- 

- 

$100 

- 

Yes. 

- 

Missouri,     , 

- 

Yes. 

Charitable  organizations. 

- 

Yes. 

Yes. 

- 

- 

" 

S500 

- 

" 

- 

Yes. 

- 

Cities  of  50,000  population,  $50. 
Cities  under  50,000  population,  $25. 

Yes. 

- 

New  Hampshire, 

Domestics,  servants 
or  other  laborers. 

" 

- 

- 

" 

- 

Yes. 

" 

" 

- 

Absolute. 

" 

- 

Yes. 

- 

Fixed  by  licensing  authority,  but  not 
less  than  $2. 

" 

Yes. 

New  Jersey, 

Yes. 

Employers'  associations  where  no  fee  charged 

to  employee. 
Teachers'  agencies. 
Nurses'  registries  (incorporated). 
Bureaus  of  registered  medical  institutions. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

For  cause. 

Yes. 

Fixed  by  licensing  authority,  but  not 
over  $25. 

Yes. 

New  York, 

Yes. 

Employers'  associations  where  no  fee  charged 

to  employee. 
Teachers'  agencies. 
Nurses'  registries  (incorporated). 
Bureaus  of  registered  medical  institutions. 
Incorporated  hospitals. 

Applies  only  to  cities, 
and  as  to  domestic 
and  commercial 
agencies  only  to 
cities  of  1st  and 
2d  class. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

res. 

Yes. 

$1,000 

For  cause. 

Yes. 

Certiorari. 

Yes. 

$25. 

Yes. 

Ohio 

" 

Yes. 

Charitable  organizations. 

- 

Yes. 

Yes. 

" 

- 

- 

$500 

" 

- 

" 

Yes. 

- 

Cities,  $50  to  $100. 
Villages,  $10  to  $25. 

Yes. 

" 

Oklahoma, 

- 

Yes. 

Charitable  organizations. 

- 

Yes. 

Yes. 

- 

- 

- 

$250 

- 

- 

- 

Yes. 

$5 

- 

Yes. 

" 

Pennsylvania,     . 

Yes. 

Employers'  associations  whe 

to  employee. 
Teachers'  agencies. 
Nurses'  registries  (incorpora 
Bureaus  of  recognized  medi 
Agencies  dealing  with  exec 

sales  positions  for  men. 

re  no  fee  charged 

ted). 

al  institutions, 
utive,  clerical  or 

Applies  only  to  cities 
of  1st  and  2d  class. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

$1,000 

For  cause. 

Yes. 

$50. 

Yes. 

Rhode  Island,    . 

Domestics,  servants 
or  other  laborers. 

- 

- 

- 

" 

" 

Yes. 

- 

- 

- 

Absolute. 

- 

" 

" 

Fixed  by  licensing 
authority. 

_ 

Yes. 

- 

Utah, 

- 

Yes. 

Religious  or  charitable  organizations. 

- 

Yes. 

- 

Yes. 

Yes. 

- 

$1,000 

Absolute. 

- 

- 

" 

" 

Fixed  by  licensing  authority. 

Yes. 

- 

Wisconsin,  . 

Laborers  of  any  kind 
whatever. 

- 

Offices  conducted  by  women  for  females  only. 

- 

Yes. 

" 

Yes. 

- 

- 

$1,000 

" 

_ 

~ 

Yes. 

$10. 

Yes. 

21 

4 

17 

13 

2 

16 

9 

11 

7 

4 

16 

10 

3 

2 

15 

4 

14 

12 

S 

Massachusetts, 

Domestics,  servants 
or  other  laborers. 

" 

Except  seamen. 

" 

- 

" 

Yes. 

" 

- 

- 

Absolute. 

" 

" 

Yes. 

" 

Fixed  by  licensing  authority,  but  not 
less  than  $2. 

" 

Yes. 

TOPICAL  SUMMARY  OF  THE   LAWS   OF   OTHER  STATES. 


Power  to  revoke  License. 

Begula- 

Adveri  ise- 
Circulars, 

Posting  of  License  ano 
Copies  of  Laws. 

Registers  ano 
Hi.,  onus  to  RE  KEPT 

FEESnEC.tn.ATEn- 

RETRJEIQNn,nPEnFEEB 

RECEIPTS  TO   RE  GIVE, 

Employment 

Cards  ano  CoNTRArTa 

Refer- 
ences lo  be 
Iu- 

Location  of  Office 

Fraudulent  Practices  forhibdkx. 

Immorality  nut- 

Inspection  and  Infokcbusnt. 

STATES. 

For 

At 
Pleasure. 

Hearing 
required. 

Appeal. 

vocable. 

License  and  Laws 
posted. 

Name  and 
Address  of 

Enforcine 
Authority. 

Employ- 

Employ- 

FHOM  EMPLOYEES. 

Employ- 

Refund- 
Advance 

Refund- 
Position 
has  been 

To 
Employ- 

To 
Employ- 

Rules  printed  on 
Back. 

To  All 

Em- 
ployer. 

To  Con- 
Laborers 
side  City. 

Living 

Vicinity 

of 
Saloons. 

Division 

of  Fees. 

Fraudu- 
lent 
Replace- 

False 

Slntemenls 

Viola- 
of  Child 
Laws. 

Sending 
Women 

Immoral 
Resorts. 

A ,  1 1 1 1 1 F  t  i  i ,  e 
Q  .action- 
able 

Characters 
to  Office. 

l.ii'cnsiiiG 
Authority 
to  enforce 

In  inspect 
Records. 

Heaulur 

Advauce 

Total 
Fees. 

!>>■  Special 
Inspectors 

California. 

Colorado, 

Connecticut, 

District  of  <  kunmbia, 

Idaho 

Illinois, 

Indiana, 

Iowa 

Maine, 
Minnesota,   . 
Missouri,      . 
New  Hampshire, 
New  Jersey, 

New  York,  , 

Ohio 

Oklahoma,   . 
Pennsylvania, 

Rhode  Island, 

Utah 

Wisconsin,    . 

Yes. 

V,.,. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yea. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 
Y'es. 

Yes. 
Yea. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Y'es. 

Yes. 

Y'es. 

,      Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yea. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

1 
1 
1 

Y 

1 
1 
1 

1 

1 

es. 

Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Laws  in  language 
which  usual  patrons 
can  understand. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

l-aw.s  in  language 
which  Usual  patrons 
can  understand. 

Same  aa  above. 

Y'es. 

Yes. 

Laws  in  language 
which  usual  palrons 
can  understand. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yea. 

Yes. 

Yea. 
Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Y'es. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Y'es. 
Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yea. 
Yes. 

Yea. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Y'es. 
Y'es. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yea. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yea. 
Yes. 

Name  ami  address  of 
licensing  authority. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yen. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Y'es. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Ycs. 
Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Y'es. 

Yes. 
Yes. 
Yea. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yea. 

Yes. 
Yea. 

- 

Y'es. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 
Yea. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Y'es. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yea. 

Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yea. 
Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yea. 
Yes. 

Yes. 
Yea. 

Yes. 

Yea. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yea. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yea. 
Yes. 
Yes. 
Yea. 

Yes. 

Y'es. 
Yes. 

Yes. 

21 

13 

2 

11 

3 

5 

10 

14 

4 

12 

12 

10 

10 

2 

14 

5 

12 

7 

5 

8 

5 

4 

3 

11 

S 

4 

13 

5 

" 

5 

13 

13 

4 

Massachusetts. 

Yes. 

- 

" 

" 

- 

Yes. 

" 

-       • 

- 

Yes. 

- 

" 

" 

Yes. 

- 

- 

" 

" 

" 

" 

" 

- 

- 

" 

Yes. 

" 

~ 

~ 

I 


I 


